//.  ^/.  oS. 


Stom  f 9e  feifirat)?  of 

(pxofcBBox  ^amuef  OXtffer 

in  (glemor)?  of 

3ubse  ^amuef  (tttiffet  QBrecftinribge 

(Jjrefienteb  61? 

^amuef  (gliffer  (jSrecfttnribge  &ong 

to  f ^  feifirari?  of 

(J)rtncefon  ^^eofogtcaf  ^emtnarj 


sec  #10,700 

McLean,  Archibald,  1732- 

1812. 

Reply  to  Mr.  Fuller's 

appendix  to  his  book. 


REPLY 


TO 


MR.  FULLER'S  APPENDIX 


TO    HIS    BOOK    ON 


THE  GOSPEL  WORTHY  OF  ALL  ACCEPTATION. 


PARTICULARLY    TO    HIS   DOCTRINE    OF 


ANTECEDENT  HOUNESS,  AND  THE  NATURE  AND  OBJECT 
OF  JUSTIFYING  FAITH. 


BY  ARCHIBALD  M'LEAN 


NEW- YORK : 

SCATCHERD    AND    ADAMS,    PRINTERS. 
1839. 


PREFACE. 


No  apology  is  deemed  necessary  for  the  detached  form  in 
which  the  following  essays  are  presented  to  the  public.   Though 
the  controversy  in  the  course  of  which  they  were  written  is 
now  almost  forgotten,  and  the  writers  themselves  have  long 
since  passed  to  their  account,  the  questions  here  discussed,  it 
will  at  once  be  seen,  possess  an  interest  of  no  local  or  passing 
character ;  they  concern  the  alone  ground  of  a  sinner's  hope  in 
the  presence  of  God,  and  in  this  view  can  never  be  destitute 
of  interest  while  men  continue  to  be  burdened  with  a  sense  of 
guilt,  and  to  put  the  anxious  question — how  shall  a  man  be  just 
with  God?     Another  reason  for  the  republication  of  these  es- 
says, is  to  be  found  in  the  circumstance,  that  a  subsequent  pub- 
lication of  Mr.  Fuller,  entitled  '*  Strictures  on  Sandemanianism," 
in  which  the  same  corrupt  doctrine  and  specious   reasoning, 
here  so  ably  refuted,  is  again  urged  with  pertinacity  and  an  air 
of  triumph,  has  been  widely  circulated  in  this  country ;  and  is 
now  confidently  appealed  to  as  an  unanswerable  piece  of  argu- 
ment, and  as  forever  settling  the  points  at  issue,  by  many  who 
have  never  read  the  writings  he  attacks,  and  who  have  certain- 
ly never  studied  their  Bibles  to  any  good  purpose.     The  Stric- 
tures referred  to,  appeared  some  eight  or  nine  years  after  the 
following  essays  were  v/ritten,  and  very  near  the  close  of  Mr. 
M'Lean's  life,  which  sufficiently  accounts  for  their  not  having 
received  from  him  a  distinct  answer:  whether  the  friends  of 
truth  have  any  reason  to  regret  this  circumstance,  the  readers 
of  this  little  work  are  called  upon  to  decide. 

With  regard  to  the  importance  of  the  questions  here  discuss- 
ed, a  few  words  may  be  said  :  the  writer  is  fully  persuaded  that 
they  involve  the  whole  difference  between  the  truth,  as  it  is  in 
Jesus,  and  another  gospel ;  that  from  the  answer  which  any  man 
is  prepared  to  give  to  them,  may  be  fairly  inferred  what  is  the 
ground  of  his  hope  in  the  presence  of  God.    Nothing  seems  to 


*V  PREFACE. 

him  clearer  than  that  a  misapprehension  in  regard  to  the  nature 
o^  faith   must  carry  with  it  an  entire  misconception  of  that 
gospel  -which  assures  salvation  to  him,  and  to  him  only,  that  be- 
lieveth.     If  faith  be  looked  upon  as  something  more  than  a  re- 
cognition of  the  gospel  as  true — of  the  testimony  on  which  it 
rests  as  trust-worthy — if  it  be  regarded  as  something  tangible, 
and  possessed  of  an  existence  and  of  qualities  apart  from  its 
object:  how  evident  is  it  that  the  mind  must,  of  necessity,  be 
turned  away  from  the  soul-satisfying,  saving  truth,  and  turned 
in  upon  itself,  lo  find  comfort  in  its  supposed  possession  of  a 
saving  fa  ilh.     The  great  facts  of  the  gospel,  with  their  bless- 
ed meaning,  which  are  designed  and  fitted  to  afford  instant  re- 
lief to  the  sinner  under  his  most  poignant  sense  of  guilt,  the 
moment  he  understands  and  counts  them  to  be  true,  must,  of 
necessity,  be  disregarded;  while  the  anxious  questions,  Have 
I  faith?   Have  I  believed  aright?   plainly  evince  the  inquirer's 
solicitude  to  find  a  Saviour  within  himself,  and  his  disbelief  of 
the  sufficiency  of  Him  who  came  into  the  world  to  save  sin- 
ners.    That  man,  it  has  been  truly  said,  must  be  ignorant  of 
the  grace  of  the  gospel,  who  docs  not  see,  in  the  blood  of  Christ, 
sufllicient  to  give  him  hope,  though  he  view  himself  as  the  great- 
est  infidel   on   earth.     The  consideration  of  his  being  a  be- 
liever forms  no  part  of  that  truth  which  comforts  the  self-con- 
demned, even  as  his   faith  forms  no  part  of  that  righteous- 
ness on  the  ground  of  which  he  hopes  for  acceptance  with  God. 
Those  whom  God   comforts,   ''are  begotten  again  to  a  live- 
ly hope  by   the   resurrection  of  Jesus  from  the  dead :"  "  they 
are   filled   with  all  peace    and   joy    in    believing"    this :   the 
sole  ground  ol  their  hope,  is,  that  "whereof  they  have  heard  in 
the  word  of  the  truth  of  the  gospel :"  to  this  they  point  Avith 
confidence  as  a  solid  and  sufl^cient  reason  of  the  hope  that  is 
in  them ;  and  the  idea  that  by  any  possibility  their  hope  may 
prove  delusive,  so  long  as  this  stands  true  in  their  consciences, 
they  are  taught  to  repel  with  abhorrence,  as  the  suggestion  of 
him  who  was  a  liar  from  the  beginning,  and  abode  not  in  the 
truth.     But  if  faith  be  "  not  the  belief  of  any  sentence   that 
can  be  thought  upon,  or  that  can  be  expressed  in  words" — if 
'•  many  things  about  truth  in  the  understanding  being  presup- 
posed, faith  be  mainly  and  principally  an  exercise  of  the  heart 


PREFACE.  V 

and  will,"*  it  demands  for  itself  a  distinctive  consideration; 
an  anxious  eye  must  be  had  to  it,  and  until  the  sinner  find  him- 
self this  believing,  willing,  loving  creature,  the  gospel  has  no 
word  of  peace  or  hope  for  him ;  it  can  only  work  wrath,  and 
give  the  knowledge  of  sin.  And  when  the  sinner  comes  to 
think  himself  possessed  of  this  holy  disposition,  when  he 
hopes  he  has  attained  an  interest  in  Christ,  is  it  the  gospel, 
think  you,  the  faithful  word  of  Him  who  was  called  the  friend 
of  publicans  and  sinners,  which  is  the  spring  of  his  comfort, 
and  daily  the  rejoicing  of  his  heart?  or  does  his  peace  spring 
rather  from  a  survey  of  himself — is  it  rather  the  confidence  of 
him  who  trusts  in  himself  that  he  is  righteous,  and  despises 
others  ? 

To  suit  this  altered  sense  of  the  word  faith,  the  gospel  is  de- 
nied to  be  a  divine  testimony,  making  its  appeal  to  the  faith  of 
men,  and  assuring  salvation  to  him  that  believeth :  though  the 
word  of  the  God  of  truth,  declares  him  a  believer,  who  sets  to 
his  seal  that  God  is  true,  and  him  only  an  unbeliever  who  makes 
God  a  liar,  by  disbelieving  the  record  which  God  hath  given  of 
his  Son.  Instead  of  a  divine  proclamation  of  forgiveness,  as- 
sured to  every  one  that  believeth,  "  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  by- 
grace,"  "  unto  all  and  upon  all  them  that  believe,  because  there 
is  no  difference,"  on  the  score  of  moral  fitness,  among  men,  the 
gospel  is  represented  as  an  offer,  holding  forth  the  promise  of 
forgiveness  to  him  whose  will  has  been  renewed  by  some  ante- 
cedent grace,  and  who  is  thus  better  disposed  than  other  men  : 
and  it  is  this  offer  which  faith  accepts.  Men  are  instructed  to 
enter  on  a  course  of  pious  labor  for  the  attainment  of  this  grace, 
though  it  is  fair  to  say,  some  question  the  propriety  of  this, 
while  fully  persuaded  that  this  grace  is  necessary  ;  yet  the  word 
of  truth  declares  that  it  is  "  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him 
that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  sheweth  mercy;"  and  "if  it  be 
of  works,  then  is  it  no  more  of  grace,"  thus  excluding  all  acts 
of  will,  whether  renewed  or  unrenewed,  even  any  the  least  co- 
operation of  his  own,  in  the  business  of  making  a  sinner's  peace 
with  God.  Yet  how  often  is  the  salvation  of  the  sinner  made 
CO  depend  on  some  motion  of  his  will,  and  faith  itself  repre- 

♦  Guthrie's  Christian's  Great  Interest. 
a2 


VI  PREFACE. 

sented  as  dependant  upon  choice  ?  And  how  often  are  texts  of 
Scripture  perverted  to  sustain  this  system  of  self-dependance; 
to  show  that  it  is  not  a  disbelief  of  what  God  has  spoken,  but 
an  indisposition  to  make  a  right  improvement  of  their  know- 
ledge, which  excludes  the  sinner  from  the  blessings  of  Christ's 
purchase  ?  Thus  it  is  said,  "  Ye  will  not  come  to  me  that  ye 
might  have  life,"  John  v.  40.  That  this  text  is  designed  to 
teach  that  it  is  not  unbelief,  but  a  want  of  will,  which  renders 
men  indifferent  to  the  salvation  of  Christ,  seems  to  be  pretty 
generally  admitted,  the  only  difference  of  sentiment  being  as 
to  whether  or  not  men  possess  any  ability  of  will  to  come  to 
Christ.  But  if  we  turn  to  the  Scripture  from  which  this  text  is 
taken,  we  find  that  the  Saviour  is  charging  upon  the  Jews  the 
guilt  of  their  unbelief,  "  that  whom  the  Father  had  sent,  him 
they  believed  not."  After  having  pointed  to  the  testimony  of 
John — to  the  works  which  he  himself  wrought  in  attestation 
of  his  mission,  to  the  Father's  voice  from  heaven  (according  to 
Dr.  Campbell's  translation,)  he  adduces  yet  another  source  of 
evidence,  "  Search  the  Scriptures,  for  in  them  ye  think  ye  have 
eternal  life,  and  they  are  they  which  testify  of  me,  and  ye  will 
not  come  to  vie  that  ye  might  have  life."  Thus  the  w^ords  which 
were  designed  to  make  known  the  Saviour's  unutterable  kind- 
ness to  the  sons  of  men — to  point  to  him  as  the  Giver  of  life  j 
believing  in  whom,  the  chief  of  sinners  is  justified  without  a 
motion  of  his  will,  in  order  to  peace  with  God  :  are  made  to 
suggest  only  the  uneasy  question,  am  I  willing  ?  Have  I  clos- 
ed with  Christ?  the  proud  thought ;  I  am  thus  willing,  I  have 
performed  the  appropriating  act ;  or  to  stir  the  angry  strife  of 
contending  parties.  Not  as  an  incidental  result,  then,  but  as 
the  necessary  and  direct  effect  of  this  system,  men's  eyes  are 
turned  away  from  that  woik  of  surpassing  grace  which  Jesus 
finished  in  his  death,  to  gather  comfort  from  supposed  eviden- 
ces of  a  work  of  grace  w^ithin  themselves;  while  those  who 
can  discover  no  such  favorable  signs  ;  who  are  forced  to  regard 
themselves  only  as  meet  objects  of  divine  wrath,  as  sinners 
and  enemies,  ungodly  and  without  strength;  though  it  is  to 
such  that  He  commends  his  love,  are  beaten  ofi"  from  any 
part,  or  hope,  in  the  revealed  mercy  of  God.  If  the  amazing 
facts  and  truths  of  the  gospel — the  love  of  God  to  sinners,  as 


PREFACE.  Vll 

such,  "  the  grace  of  Him,  who,  when  he  was  rich  for  our  sakes 
became  poor,  that  we  through  his  poverty  might  be  rich" — the 
glad  tidings  of  great  joy,  that  "  He  has  made  peace  by  the  blood 
of  His  cross,"  that  sinners  might  be  blessed  in  Him,  are  brought 
forward  :  it  is  only  to  animate  the  efforts  and  stimulate  the  re- 
ligious pride  of  the  devout  inquirer,  or  as  subservient  to  that 
mysterious  moral  change  which  is  to  be  inwrought  in  conver- 
sion, and  to  which  men's  attention  is  principally  directed. 

In  the  words  of  one  who  has  ably  exposed  the  corruptions  of 
the  system  referred  to,  "  It  would  seem,  from  the  generality  of 
pulpit  harangues,  that  all  who  have  a  disposition  to  attend 
preaching,  believe  the  gospel,  and  so  need  very  little  instruction 
on  that  head.  The  grand  end  is,  to  awaken  warm  fits  of  af- 
fection, under  the  pretence  of  cultivating  the  religion  of  the 
heart.  The  presence  of  these  fancies  is  called  communion 
with  God ;  their  absence,  desertion :  a  conceit  that  they  pos- 
sess them,  faith  ;  and  a  fear  about  them,  unbelief;  which  they 
are  taught  to  pray  against:  and  thus,  thus  it  is,  that  trifles,  rath- 
er delusions,  are  set  up  and  caressed ;  while  infinite  worth  is 
slighted  and  despised." 

In  conclusion,  while  the  writer  is  fully  persuaded  that  no 
force  of  argument  will  avail  to  open  the  eyes  of  any  to  the 
simplicity  ot  the  truth  here  vindicated :  "that  this  is  part  of  that 
knowledge  which  no  man  can  communicate  to  his  neighbor;" 
yet,  believing  that  "faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by 
the  word  of  God,"  he  would  earnestly  entreat  the  reader  to  ex- 
amine the  doctrine  defended  in  the  following  pages,  by  that  in- 
fallible standard  ;  believing  it  to  be  of  the  last  importance  to 
every  man  to  come  to  a  Scriptural  conclusion  as  to  the  points 
at  issue.  Those  who  are  religious  teachers  especially,  he 
would  earnestly  exhort  to  consider  well  whether  they  be  ob- 
noxious to  that  heaviest  woe  which  the  word  of  God  pronoun- 
ces against  any  human  being:  that  woe  which  was  denounced 
against  the  religious  teachers,  and  leaders  in  devotion,  of  the 
most  devout  nation  the  world  has  ever  known — "  Woe  unto  you, 
lawyers,  for  ye  have  taken  away  the  key  of  knowledge,  ye  en- 
ter not  in  yourselves,  neither  do  ye  suffer  others  to  enter  in;" 
whether  they  be  engaged  in  holding  forth  that  truth  which 
stands  on  the  testimony  of  God,  to  be  believed  or  disbelieved  ; 


Vlll  PREFACE. 


or  whether,  denying  that  the  salvation  of  men  stands  in  the 
persuasion  of  what  God  has  spoken,  they  are  found  fighting 
against  God,  and  laboring  to  extinguish  the  best— the  only  hope 
of  mankind.  H.  W, 


CONTENTS. 


aUESTION  I. 

Whether  the  Existence  of  a  holy  Disposition  of  Heart  he  necessary  to 

believing  7 

What  this  previous  holy  disposition  is,  page  4. — The  state  of  tlie 
question  concluded,  5. — The  principle  upon  which  this  previous 
holy  disposition  is  established,  6,  7.— The  word  heart  in  Scripture 
frequently  means  the  intellectual  faculty,  8,  9. — Scripture  passages 
adduced  which  do  not  prove  a  previous  holy  disposition,  9,  10. — A 
passage  from  Edwards  on  the  will,  considered,  10, 11. — Regeneration 
is  only  by  means  of  the  word,  12 — 17- — None  are  godly  unbelievers, 
nor  in  a  state  of  salvation  till  they  believe,20,21.— Explanation  of  the 
honest  and  good  heart  in  the  parable  of  the  sower,  21,  23. — Note  on 
Hopkins'  sermon,  24,  25. — Fallen  man  still  possesses  intellectual 
and  moral  powers,  though  impaired  and  disordered  by  sin,  25,  2G.— 
Regeneration  rectifies  this,  and  gives  the  lead  to  the  intellectual 
faculty,  26,  27. — No  exercise  cf  the  will  can  be  of  a  holy  nature 
unless  influenced  by  proper  motives  existing  in  the  judgment,  27, 
62. — A  spiritual  perception  of  the  truth  cannot  be  separated  from 
believing  it,  28,  29,— A  remarkable  concession  of  Mr.  Fuller,  29, 
30. — Faith  implies  repentance,  32.— Legal  repentance  may  be  with- 
out faith  in  Christ,  33. — True  evangelical  repentance  is  an  imme- 
diate effect  of  faith,  33. — Ought  not  to  be  preached  as  prerequisite  to 
faith,  34.— A  specimen  of  such  preaching,  34. — Yet  ought  to  be  urg- 
ed on  all  to  whom  the  gospel  is  preached,  30,  35,  40. — Mr.  Fuller's 
remarks  on  Barnard's  Simple  Truth,  36,  37. — The  treatment  of  a 
dying  sinner,  38. — Tendency  of  Mr.  Fuller's  doctrine,  39. 


CONTENTS. 


aUESTION  II. 

Whether  justifying  Faith  includes  in  its  Nature  any  thing  more  tJian 
a  Belief  of  the  Gospel. 

Mr.  Fuller's  description  of  faith  in  the  first  edition  of  his  book  on  the 
Gospel  Worthy  of  all  Acceptation,  43 — 45. — His  explanation  of 
the  term  belief,  considered,  46,  47. — His  explanation  of  The  Truth 
considered,  48,  51. — His  account  of  faith   in  the  2nd  edition,  51. — 
Professes  to  agree  with  Mr.  M.  in  considei'ing  the  belief  of  the  gos- 
pel saving  faith,  52. — Yet  differs  as  to  what  belief  includes,  52,  53. — 
In  which  he  also  differs  from  his  own  definition  of  it,  53,  54. — Ac- 
cuses Mr.  M.  of  excluding  everything  holy  from  the  nature  of  faith, 
55. — The  ground  of  this  accusation  considered,  55 — 58. — Wherein 
the  holiness  of  faith  consists,  59 — 60. — Mr.  Fuller  places  the  holi- 
ness of  faith  entirely  in  the  will,  61. — His  main   argument  for  this 
considered,  62 — 65. — Belief  not  a  mere  passive  admission  of  truth  in- 
to the  mind,  65,  66. — He  denies  that  faith  would  be  a  duty,  or  un- 
belief a  sin  were  they  merely  an  exercise  of  the  understanding,  &6. 
— Consequences  of  such  a  sentiment,  67. — Affirms  that  aversion  of 
heart  is  the  only  obstruction  to  faith,  and  that  the  removal  of  this 
Is  the  only  influence  necessary  to  produce  it,  67. — What  this  senti- 
ment infers,  68,  70. — His  argimients  from   Scripture  to  prove  that 
faith  is  more  than  belief,  answered,  70 — 77. — The  improprieties  he 
finds  in  Scripture  language,  77. — His  attempt  to  confound  faith, 
hope,  and  love,  78,  79. — Shifts  the  point  by  misrepresentation,  79, 
80.— 1  Cor.xiii.  13.  explained,  81,82. 


aUESTlON  III. 

Whether  jus^tify in g  Faith  respects  God  as  the  justifier  of  the  Ungodly  ? 

The  passage  in  the  Commission  which  Mr.  Fuller  opposes  on  this 
subject,  84— 86.— Explained,  86—88. — Mr.  Fuller  at  times  appears 
to  ao-rec  with  it,  8S. — The  difference  is  not  about  tlie  procuring 
cause  of  justification,  but  the  way  in  which  we  receive  it,  89. — His 
inconsistency  in  both  affirming  and  denying  that  we  are  justified 
by  faith  working  by  love,  or  as  a  moral  virtue,  90. — The  fitness  of 


CONTENTS*  XI 

faith  to  receive  justification  as  a  free  ^ift,  92,  93.-— Considers  the 
phraseology  of  Rom.  iv.  4,  5,  as  altogether  singular,  95. — Though 
it  clearly  agrees  with  the  whole  of  the  apostle's  doctrine  on  that 
subject,  96. — His  misrepresentation  of  his  opponent's  sentiment, 
97.— His  explanation  of  Rom.  iv.  4,  5,  98,  99.— Remarks  on  his 
explanation,  99— 112.— The  examples  of  Abraham  and  David  do 
not  prove  that  antecedent  holiness  is  necessary  to  justification,  112 
—121. — Another  explanation  of  Rom.  iv.  4,  5,  121—138. — The 
apostle's  phraseology  the  most  correct  that  could  be  devised,  129 — 
130.  —  A  conviction  of  sin  and  its  consequences,  though  neces- 
sary to  faith  in  Christ,  may  yet  fail  of  that  issue,  129 — 130. — The 
effects  of  the  doctrine  which  Mr.  Fuller  contends  for  upon  the  minds 
of  awakened  sinners,  130.— His  method  of  shifting  the  supposed 
case,  and  combating  another,  131— 134.— Another  case  stated,  and 
Mr.  Fuller's  doctrine  applied  to  it,  135 — 137. 


A    REPLY 


TO 


MR.  FULLER'S   APPENDIX 


TO    HIS    BOOK    ON 


THE  GOSPEL  WORTHY  OF  ALL  ACCEPTATION. 


INTRODUCTION. 

Mr.  Andrew  Fuller,  in  an  Appendix  to  a  new-mo- 
delled edition  of  his  book,  entitled,  "  The  Gospel  Worthy 
of  all  Acceptation,"  has  attempted  to  refute  what  I  have  ad- 
vanced on  Faith  in  my  Treatise  on  the  Commission  of 
Christ,  and  in  a  pamphlet,  entitled,  "  The  Belief  of  the 
Gospel,  saving  Faith."  One  reason  he  assigns  for  offer- 
ing his  sentiments  on  this  subject  is,  that  "  Mr.  M'Lean 
in  a  second  edition  of  the  Commission  of  Christ,  has  pub- 
lished several  pages  of  animadversions  on  what  I  have  ad- 
vanced on  the  subject,  and  has  charged  me  with  very  seri- 
ous consequences."*  Yet  these  several  pages  happen  to  be 
only  two  notes  at  the  bottom  of  the  pages,  wherein  Mr. 
Fuller's  name  is  not  once  mentioned.     Nor  is  there  the 

♦  Page  159. 
1 


2  INTRODUCTION. 

least  reference  in  them  to  any  thing  which  Mr.  Fuller  had 
published,  that  might  lead  the  reader  to  think  I  had  him  in 
view. 

He  seems  to  think  that  it  was  not  very  proper  in  mc  to 
animadvert  pablicly  on  what  he  had  written  only  in  two 
private  letters.  Had  I  exposed  any  of  his  private  opinions, 
communicated  to  me  in  confidence,  and  mentioned  his 
name,  I  confess  it  would  have  been  very  indelicate  ;  but  as 
neither  of  these  is  the  case,  and  as  it  is  Mr.  Fuller  himself 
who  has  informed  the  public  that  these  notes  refer  to  his 
sentiments,  I  see  not  the  least  cause  of  complaint.  He 
observes,  that  "  if  such  conduct  were  proper,  some  people 
may  be  tempted  to  think  that  it  is  rather  dangerous  to  cor- 
respond with  authors."*  What  danger  he  may  apprehend 
from  corresponding  with  me  I  know  not,  as  I  am  altogether 
unconscious  of  having  ever  attempted  to  expose  or  misre- 
present him  either  publicly  or  privately.  Whether  Mr. 
Fuller  has  been  equally  cautious  on  this  head  with  regard 
to  me  and  my  connections,  he  knows  best. 

He  complains  that  his  "  sentiments  are  very  partially 
stated,  and  things  introduced  so  much  out  of  their  cojinec- 
tion,  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  reader  to  form  any  judg- 
ment concerning  them.t""  I  am  certain,  however,  that 
this  complaint  is  groundless.  Every  material  idea  in  his 
letters  relating  to  the  subject  is,  in  these  two  notes,  express- 
ed in  his  own  words,  and  distinguished  by  invcr'ed  com- 
mas ;  and  nothing  is  so  introduced  out  of  its  connection 
as  in  the  least  degree  to  obscure  or  alter  the  sense.  The 
publication  of  his  letters  would  clearly  evince  this  ;  but 
there  is  no  occasion,  for  if  any  will  take  the  trouble  of  com- 
paring his  words,  quoted  in  these  two  notes,  with  liis  Ap- 
pendix, he  will  tiiid  the  sentiment  to  be  the  same  in  both. 

At  my  advanced  period  of  life,  I  could  wish  to  have  been 

*  Pas:elGO.  t  Ibid. 


INTRODUCTION.  6 

excused  from  entering  the  field  of  controversy,  and  especi- 
ally with  Mr.  Fuller,  who  is  much  my  superior  in  polemi- 
cal talents,  which  he  has  exercised  of  late  years  to  good 
purpose  both  against  Socinians  and  Deists.  But  it  some- 
times happens  that  men  of  distinguished  abilities  do  not  al- 
ways know  where  to  stop  in  their  polemical  career.  Suc- 
cess in  some  things  has  urged  them  on  to  attempt  others, 
wherein  they  have  done  little  service  to  the  cause  of  truth ; 
and  such,  in  my  humble  opinion,  is  Mr.  Fuller's  present 
attempt. 

As  he  seems  to  consider  the  simple  belief  of  the  gospel 
to  be  nothing  more  than  mere  speculation,  which  has  no 
necessary  connection  with,  nor  influence  upon  true  holi- 
ness of  heart,  I  can  easily  see  how  a  concern  for  the  inte- 
rests of  vital  religion  may  have  led  him  to  make  faith  the 
effect  of  a  previous  holy  disposition,  and  to  include  in  its 
nature  the  exercise  of  the  will  and  affections  ;  but  I  cannot 
so  easily  account  for  his  misrepresentations  of  my  senti- 
ments, and  the  strange  conclusions  he  draws  from  them. 
Those  who  know  nothing  of  my  writings  but  through  the 
medium  of  his  Appendix,  must  consider  them  as  striking  at 
the  root  of  all  true  religion,  or  at  best  as  a  mere  jumble  of 
inconsistencies.  This  lays  me  under  the  necessity  of  mak- 
ing some  reply,  not  only  to  wipe  off  these  misrepresenta- 
tions, but  also,  if  possible,  to  throw  some  further  light  on 
the  point  in  debate. 

The  first  thing  that  presents  itself  is  the  question  which 
Mr.  Fuller  prefixes  to  his  Appendix,  and  which  I  shall  here 
make. 


QUESTION  I. 


WHETHER    THE    EXISTENCE    OF    A    HOLY    DISPOSITION    OF 
HEART    FE    NECESSARY    TO    BELIEVING? 

This  holy  disposition  he  terms  a  divine  principle — the 
moral  state  or  disposition  of  the  soul — a  change  of  heart — 
a  change  of  the  hias  of  the  heart  towards  God.*  He  main- 
tains that  this  principle  must  exist  prior  to,  or  before  believ- 
ing, and  in  order  to  it  ;  and  he  frequently  represents  faith 
as  arising  out  of  it,  influenced  by  it,  and  partaking  of  it.f 
I  never  considered  this  previous  principle  to  be  any  part  of 
the  diiference  betwixt  Mr.  Fuller  and  me  ;  nor  did  I  ob- 
serve that  he  held  any  such  sentiment,  my  attention  being 
entirely  confined  to  what  he  says  on  the  nature  of  faith  it- 
self. I  might  therefore  justly  excuse  myself  from  entering 
upon  the  question  which  he  prefixes  to  his  Appendix,  be- 
cause, althouj^h  the  affirmative  were  admitted,  it  will  not 
prove  that  faith  is  any  thing  else  than  simple  belief;  and 
because  the  question  betwixt  us  does  not  respect  what  is 
previous  to  faith,  but  simply  what  faith  itself  is.  But  as 
Mr.  Fuller  has  brought  forward  this  previous  holy  disposi- 
tion of  heart,  and  laid  it  as  the  fundamental  principle  of  his 

*  Page  127,  129,  170.  t  Page  171—176. 


OF    A    SUPPOSED    HOLY    PRINCIPLE,   ETC.  6 

scheme,  it  will  be  proper  to  examine  it  a  little.  After  a 
deal  of  reasoning,  he  conies  at  last  to  state  the  question 
thus  : — 

"That  there  is  a  divine  influence  upon  the  soul  which  is 
necessary  to  spiritual  perception  and  belief,  as  being  the 
cause  of  them,  those  with  whom  I  am  now  reasoning  will 
admit.  The  only  question  is,  In  what  order  these  things 
are  caused  ?  Whether  the  Holy  Spirit  causes  the  mind, 
while  carnal,  to  discern  and  believe  spiritual  things,  and 
thereby  render  it  spiritual ;  or  whether  he  imparts  a  holy 
susceptibility  and  relish  for  the  truth,  in  consequence  of 
which  we  discern  its  glory  and  embrace  it  ?  The  latter  ap- 
pears to  me  to  be  the  truth."* 

But  this  is  a  very  unfair  state  of  the  question,  so  far  as 
it  relates  to  the  opinion  of  his  opponents  ;  for  he  repre- 
sents them  as  maintaining,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  causes  the 
mind,  while  carnal,  or  before  it  is  spiritually  illuminated,  to 
discern  and  believe  spiritual  things  ;  and  then  he  sets  him- 
self to  argue  against  this  contradiction  of  his  own  framing, 
as  a  thing  impossible  even  with  God  himself,  because  im- 
possible in  its  own  nature,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  declares 
it  to  be  so,  2.  Cor.  ii.  14. t  Were  I  to  state  Mr.  Fuller's 
sentiments  thus,  "The  Holy  Spirit  imparts  to  the  mind, 
while  carnal,  a  holy  susceptibility  and  relish  for  the  truth," 
would  he  not  justly  complain  that  I  had  misrepresented  his 
view,  and  that  he  did  not  mean  that  the  mind  could  possess 
any  holy  susceptibility  or  relish  for  the  truth  while  it  was  in 
a  carnal  state  ;  but  only,  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  the  very 
act  of  imparting  this  holy  susceptibility  and  relish  for  the 
truth,  removed  the  carnality  of  the  mind  ?  But  then  this 
explanation  applies  equally  to  the  other  side  of  the  question  ; 
and  surely  it  appears  at  least  as  consistent  with  the  nature  of 
things,  and  as  easy  to  conceive,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should 

♦  Page  204,  205.  t  Page  205, 206. 


6  OF    A    SUPPOSED    HOLV    PRINCIPLE 

in  the  first  instance,  communicate  the  light  of  truth  to  a 
dark  carnal  mind,  and  thereby  render  it  spiritual,  as  that  he 
should,  prior  to  that,  impart  to  it  a  holy  susceptibility  and 
relish  for  the  truth.  It  would,  indeed,  be  highly  presumptuous 
in  me  to  affirm  of  this  last  what  Mr.  Fuller  does  of  the  for- 
mer, viz  :  that  it  is  injpossible  with  God  :  but  I  must  be  al- 
lowed to  say,  that  to  me  it  is  altogether  inconceivable  how 
the  human  mind  can  have  a  holy  relish  for  the  truth  before  it 
has  any  perception  of  it.  A  conviction  of  sin,  and  a  fear  of 
its  awful  consequences,  may  indeed  dispose  a  person  to 
listen  to,  and  relish  any  thing  which  may  give  him  hope  ; 
but  till  his  mind  is  in  some  measure  enlightened  in  the 
knowledge  of  Christ,  this  cannot  be  termed  a  holy  suscep- 
tibility, much  less  a  holy  lelLsh  for  the  truth,  or  a  change  of 
heart.  In  such  circumstances,  it  is  only  the  effect  of  that 
natural  self-love  or  desire  of  happiness  which  is  common 
to  all  mankind,  and  which,  though  it  may  subserve  his 
relish  for  the  truth  as  soon  as  he  perceives  it,  must,  till  then, 
lead  him  to  seek  relief  or  ease  to  his  mind  from,  some  other 
quarter. 

The  principle  upon  which  Mr.  Fuller  establishes  this 
holy  disposition  previous  to  faith  seems  to  be  this  : — That 
the  understanding,  or  perceptive  faculty  in  man  is  directed 
and  governed  by  his  will  and  inclinations.  The  most  of 
his  arguments  are  evidently  foimded  on  this  hypothesis. 
But  must  it  not  be  owned,  that,  so  far  as  this  is  th-  case,  it 
is  an  irregular  exercise  of  his  faculties,  arising  from  the 
i..oral  disorder  of  his  lapsed  nature,  whereby  his  judgment, 
reason,  and  conscience,  are  weakened,  perverted  and  blind- 
ed, so  as  to  be  subjected  to  his  will  and  corrupt  inclinations  ?* 

♦  Dr.  Owen  ascribes  this  to  the  di«!order  introduced  into  the  soul  by 
the  fall ;  his  words  arc,  "  The  rise  of  this  is  the  disorder  that  is  brought 
upon  all  its  faculties  by  sin.  God  created  them  all  in  a  perfect  har- 
monv  and  union.  The  mind  and  reason  were  in  perfect  subjection 
and  subordination  to  God  and  his   will.     The   will  answered  in   its 


PREVIOUS    TO    FAITH.  7 

And  shall  we  suppose  that,  in  regeneration,  the  Holy  Spirit 
acts  according  to  this  order,  by  first  performing  some  physi- 
cal operation  upon  the  blind  will  to  give  it  a  new  bias  or 
incliiiation,  and  thus  make  way  for  the  introduction  of  light 
into  the  understanding  ? 

This  is  evidently  Mr.  Fuller's  opinion  ;  for  he  says, 
"  G  d  does  not  cause  the  natural  man  to  receive  spiritual 
things  ;"  that  he  considers  as  im{)ossible,  ''  but  he  re?noves 
the  obstructing  film,  by  imparting  a  spiritual  relish  for  those 
things."  This  obstructing  film  he  explains  to  be  "the  ob- 
stinacy and  aversion  of  the  heart,"  and  thinks  that  the  first 
operation  of  the  Spirit  is  his  "imparting  a  spiritual  relish 
for  those  thinss  "  which  the  mind  does  not  as  yet  perceive. 
"  Thus,"  he  says,.  "  it  is  that  spiritual  things  are  spiritually 
discerned."*  Whether  I  take  these  words  by  themselves, 
or  in  connection  with  the  whole  paragraph,  I  can  make  no 
other  sense  of  them  but  this,  that  spiritual  things  are  spiri- 
tually discerned  by  a  spiritual  relish  for  we  know  not  what; 
for  he  does  not  admit  that  there  is  any  previous  communi- 
cation of  spiritual  light  to  the  understanding ;  on  the  con- 
trary, he  denies  this  to  be  possiWe,  even  with  God  himself. 

He  observes,  that  "  thouah  holiness  is  frequently  ascribed 
in  the  Scriptures  to  a  spiritual   perception  of  the  truth,  yet 

choiceof  good,  the  discovery  made  of  it  by  the  mind;  the  affections  con- 
stantly and  evenly  foUov/ed  the  understanding  an<j  will.  The  mind's 
subjection  to  God  was  the  spring  of  the  orderly  and  harmonious  mo- 
tion of  the  soul,  and  all  the  wheels  of  it.  That  being  disturbed  by  sin, 
the  rest  of  the  faculties  move  cross  and  contrary  one  to  another.  The 
will  chooseth  not  the  good  which  the  mind  discovers  :  the  affections  de- 
light not  in  that  which  the  will  chooseth  ;  but  all  jar  and  interfere, 
cross  and  rebel  against  each  other.  This  we  have  got  by  our  falling 
from  God.  Hence,  sometimes  the  will  leads,  the  judgment  follows  ; 
yea,  commonly  the  affections,  which  should  attend  upon  all,  get  the 
sovereignty,  and  draw  the  whole  soul  after  thera," — On  the  Nature 
and  Power  of  Indwelling  Sin.  Chap,  iii. 
»  Page  205,  206. 


8  OF    A    SUPPOSED    HOLY     PRINCIPLE 

that  spiritual  perception  itself,  in  the  first  instance,  is  as- 
cribed to  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  heart." 
And  for  this  he  cites  Acts  xvi.  4.  2  Cor.  iv.  6.  1  John  ii.  20, 
27.* 

Spiritual  perception  is  without  doubt  the  effect  of  the 
Holy  Spirit's  influence  upon  the  heart ;  but  the  reader  must 
observe,  that  Mr.  Fuller  here  uses  the  word  heart  to  signify 
the  will  and  affections,  as  distinguished  from  the  under- 
standing or  perceiving  faculty  ;  so  ihat  his  meaning  is,  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  does  not,  in  the  first  instance,  impart  a 
spiritual  perception  of  the  truth,  and  so  make  persons  to 
relish  or  love  it;  but  that  he  makes  them  first  to  relish  or 
love  it,  and  then  to  perceive  or  understand  it.  But,  on  this 
subject,  the  word  of  God  never  mentions  the  word  heart,  in 
Mr.  Fuller's  partial  sense  of  it,  but  always  as  including  the 
understanding,  as  well  as  the  will  and  affections, |  and  the 
former  as  the  avenue  to  the  latter.  It  has,  indeed,  become 
common  with  us  to  confine  the  metaphorical  use  of  the  word 
heart  to  the  aflections  and  dispositions ;  but  in  Scripture 
the  heart  is  said  to  know,  to  understand,  to  study,  to  dis- 
cern, to  devise,  to  meditate,  to  ponder,  to  consider,  to  rea- 
son, to  indite,  to  doubt,  to  believe,  to  be  wise,  &c.  In 
short,  every  exercise  which  we   consider  as   belonging  to 

*  Page  20G. 

t  "  The  word  heart  in  the  Scripture  is  variously  used.  Sometimes 
for  the  mind  and  understanding;  sometimes  for  the  will;  sometimes 
for  the  affections  ;  sometimes  for  the  conscience;  sometimes  for  the 
whole  soul.  Generally  it  denotes  the  whole  soul  of  man,  and  all  the 
faculties  of  it,  not  absolutely,  hut  as  they  are  all  one  princii^le  of  mo- 
ral operations,  as  they  a!l  concur  in  our  doing  trood  or  evil.  The 
mind,  as  it  inquireth,  discerneth.  and  judgeth  what  is  to  be  done, 
what  refused:  The  will,  as  it  chooseth  or  refuseth,  and  avoids :  The 
affections,  as  they  like  or  dislike,  cleave  to,  or  have  an  aversation 
from  that  which  is  proposed  to  them :  The  conscience,  as  it  warns  and 
determines.  All  these  together  are  called  the  heart." — Owen  on  the 
Nature  and  Power  of  Indwelling  Sin.     Chap.  iii. 


PREVIOUS    TO    FAITH.  » 

the  intellectual  taculty,  is  in  Scripture  ascribed  to  the  heart. 
See  Deut.  iv.  39,  Pss.].  xlv.  1.  and  xlix.  3.  Prov.  x.  8. 
chap.  XV.  2S.  chap.  xvi.  9.  chap.  xix.  21.  Eccl.  viii.  5.  Jer. 
xxiv.  7.  Matt.  xiii.  15.  Mark  ii.  6,  8.  chap.  xi.  23.  Luke 
ii.  19,  35. 

The  Scripture  passages  which  Mr.  Fuller  refers  to,  prove 
this,  and  are  decidedly  against  him.  The  Lord's  opening 
the  heart  of  Lydia,  was  his  opening  her  mind,  in  the  fust 
instance,  to  perceive  in  some  measure  the  sense  and  excel- 
lency of  what  was  spoken,  so  as  to  make  her  attend  to  it 
with  judgment  and  relish.  It  is  equivalent  to  what  the 
Lord  did  to  his  disciples,  "Then  opened  he  their  under- 
standing {vuv  mind),  that  they  might  understand  the 
Scriptures,"  Luke  xxiv.  45.  And  if  we  can  believe  the 
disciples  themselves,  it  was  by  his  opening  the  Scriptures  to 
their  understanding  (which  is  the  same  thing),  that  their 
affections  were  moved  :  "  Did  not  our  hearts  burn  with- 
IN  us  while  he  talked  with  us  by  the  way,  and  while  he 
OPENED  TO  us  THE  ScRiPTURES,"  vcr.  32.  To  opeu  the 
understanding  or  mind,  is  a  clear  and  common  expression, 
but  to  open  the  will  or  affections,  seems  not  intelligible, 
and  is  never  used.  Again,  when  the  apostle  says,  "  God 
hath  shined  in  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ,"  2  Cor.  iv. 
6,  he  certainly  does  not  mean  that  God  had  first  shined 
in  their  will  and  affections  ;  for  these  are  not  the  perceptive 
powers  of  the  heart,  which  are  adapted  to  receive  light  in 
the  first  instance,  but  the  understanding  or  judgment.  Ac- 
cordingly, this  shining  of  the  divine  glory  in  the  hearts  of 
these  eminent  ministers  of  Christ,  is  represented  as  giving 
them  the  light  [rrig  yvwaecoi)  OF  THE  KNOWLEDGE  of  it ;  and 
he  also  shows  that  it  was  in  beholding  this  glory  of  the 
Lord,  that  they  were  changed  into  the  same  image,  chap, 
iii.  18.  The  spiritual  light  communicated  by  the  Spirit  to 
their  understanding,  worked  effectually  upon  their  will  and  af- 


10  OF    A    SUPPOSED    HOLY    PRINCIPLE 

fections,  and  changed  their  souls  into  the  divine  image.  With 
respect  to  the  anointing  mentioned  1  John  ii.  20,  27,  I 
cannot  perceive  how  it  favours  Mr.  Fuller's  hypothesis.  It 
is  represented  as  a  preservative  from  the  false  doctrine  of 
seducers,  and  cannot  be  those  blind  and  enthusiastical  im- 
pressions and  emotions  which  some  honour  with  the  name 
of  a  divine  unction  ;  for,  as  it  taught  and  made  them  know 
all  things,  it  must  have  been  by  enlightening  their  judg- 
ment,  and  seems  to  have  been  a  portion  or  decree  of  that 
which  Christ  promised  to  his  disciples,  and  by  which  they 
were  to  be  guided  into  all  truth,  John  xiv.  26.  and  xvi.  13, 
14. 

To  show  that  the  will  acts  prior  to  the  understanding,  and 
independently  of  it,  he  says,  "  Whatever  maybe  said  of  par. 
ticular  volitions  being  caused  by  ideas  received  into  the 
mind,  original  biasses  are  not  so  ;"  and,  in  a  note  below, 
affirms  that  "President  Edwards  speaks  with  great  caution 
on  the  will  being  determined  by  the  understanding."*  Yet 
the  citation  shows  that  President  Edwards  uses  no  other 
caution  on  this  point  than  to  explain  what  he  means  by  the 
understanding,  viz.  not  only  reason  or  judgment,  but  also 
perception  or  apprehension. +  And  this  explanation  was 
necessary,  because  the  will  is  not  always  determined  by  what 
right  reason  or  judgment  would  dictate,  but  is  often  govern- 
ed by  erroneous  perceptions  and  apprehensions.  But  be 
the  acts  of  the  understanding  rioht  or  wrong,  still  thev  are 
its  acts,  and  must  ever  precede  and  influence  the  acts  of  the 
will,  unless  we  can  suppose  that  the  will  acts  without  any 
previous  inducement,  motive,  cause,  or  ground  of  its  choice, 
which  President  Edwards  absolutely  denies.  J 

*  Page  207. 

t  Enquiry  on  the  Will,  Part  I.  Sect.  2. 

t  III  the  same  Section  lie  says,  "  By  motive,  I  mean  the  whole  of 
that  which  moves,  excites,  or  invites  the  mind  to  volition,  whetlier  that 
be  one  ihin^  singly,  or  many  things  conjunctly.     Whatever  is  a  mo- 


PREVIOUS    TO    FAITH.  11 

But  it  is  said  that  original  biasses  are  not  caused  by  ideas 
received  into  the  mind.  It  may  be  so  for  any  thing  I 
know.  Adam  was  possessed  of  an  original  holy  bias,  yet 
this,  in  order  of  nature,  might  arise  from  the  discovery  he 
had  of  God.  Had  his  will  been  wholly  governed  by  this 
bias,  without  any  direction  or  influence  from  ideas  in  his 
mind,  I  know  not  wherein  it  would  have  differed  from 
a  blind  instinct  or  propensity,  being  devoid  of  any  rational 
motive,  end,  or  aim,  as  to  him.  Again,  if  this  holy  bias 
had  no  dependence  on  any  light  in  his  judgment,  how  came 
he  to  lose  it,  and  receive  a  contrary  bias,  through  the  influ- 
ence of  those  false  ideas  which  Satan  instilled  into  his 
mind,  and  which  is  the  origin  of  that  evil  bias  which  is  to 
be  found  in  all  his  posterity? 

But  whether  original  biasses  are  caused  by  ideas  received 
into  the  mind  or  not,  it  has  no  concern  with  the  question 
u  ;der  consideration,  unless  it  could  be  shown  that  regene- 
ration is  an  original  bias,  and  that  it  exists  before  any 
spiritual  light  is  communicated  to  the  mind. 

Mr.  Fuller  asserts  that  "every  thing  which  proves  spirit- 
ual perceptiuii  and  faith  to  be  holy  exercises,  proves  that  a 
change  of  heart  must  of  necessity  precede  them,  as  no  holy 
exercise  can  have  place  while  the  heart  is  under  the  domi- 
nion  of  carnality."*  That  spiritual  perception  and  belief 
are  holy,  is  freely  admitted;  and  I  have  no  objection  to 
their  being  termed  (exercises,  if  nothing  more  is  meant  than 

live  in  this  sens-^,  must  be  snmeUiinir  that  is  extant  in  the  view  or  ap- 
p:-^lieiit;ioii  of  Uie  unJerstaudinij,  or  perceiving  faculty.  Nothing  can 
induce  III-  inviie  the  mind  to  will  or  act  any  thing  any  fartlierthan  itis 
perceived,  or  in  sonic  way  or  other  in  the  mind's  view  ;  for  what  is 
wliolly  iiiipeiceivcd,  and  perfectly  out  of  the  mind's  view,  cannot  af- 
fect the  mini  at  all.  It  is  most  evident  that  nothing  is  in  the  mind, 
or  r 'aches  u,  or  t.ikes  any  hold  of  it,  atry  otherwise  than  as  it  is  per- 
ceived i)r  thnii^hi  ol" — Enquiry  on  the  Will,  Part  I.  Sect,  2.  Sec  also 
II.  Sri  8,  9,  10. 
*  P..ue207. 


12  OF    A    SUPPOSED    HOLY    PRINCIPLE 

simply  perceiving  and  believing.  But  how  does  this  "prove 
that  a  change  of*  heart  must  necessarily  precede  them  ?" 
Why,  Mr.  Fuller  informs  us,  that  "  no  holy  exercise,"  con- 
sequently no  spiritual  perception  or  belief,  "  can  have  place 
while  the  heart  is  under  the  dominion  of  carnality."  True ; 
contraries  cannot  have  dominion  in  the  same  heart,  and  at 
the  same  instant;  but  for  the  same  reason,  no  change  of 
heart  can  actually  have  place  while  it  is  under  the  dominion 
of  carnality.  Here  both  sides  of  the  question  stand  upon 
equal  ground.  But,  as  it  will  be  allowed  that  God  can 
change  the  heart,  the  question  is,  Whether  does  this  change 
begin  with  a  removal  of  the  darkness  and  unbelief  of  the 
mind,  or  whether  is  the  heart  actually  changed  previous  to 
this,  and  while  it  is  yet  in  a  state  of  spiritual  darkness  and 
unbelief?  The  former  is  my  sentiment,  the  latter  Mr.  Ful- 
ler's. •'  It  is  thus  (he  says)  I  apprehend  that  God  reveals 
the  truth  to  us  by  his  Spirit,  in  order  to  our  discerning  and 
believing  it."*  That  is,  he  reveals  the  truth  to  us,  by 
changing  our  hearts  before  we  perceive  and  believe  it.  In 
this  method  he  thinks  it  was  revealed  unto  Peter,  Matt.  xvi. 
17. — unto  babes.  Matt.  xi.  25. — unto  the  apostles,  1  Cor. 
ii.  9,  10,  12,  13,  14. 1  But  all  these  passages  are  greatly 
misapplied,  when  brought  to  prove,  either  that  the  heart  is 
actually  changed  while  yet  in  a  state  of  ignorance  and  un- 
belief, or  that  God  cannot  remove  this  ignorance  and  unbe- 
lief from  the  natural  man,  in  the  first  instance,  and  so  make 
him  spiritually  to  discern  spiritual  things. 

The  Scriptures  expressly  declare,  that  the  word  of  truth, 
or  the  incorruptible  seed  of  the  word,  is  the  means  or 
instrument  of  regeneration.  "  Of  his  own  will  begat  he  us 
with  the  word  of  truth,"  James  i.  18.  ""Being  born  again, 
not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of 
God,  which  livcth  and  abidethfor  ever,"  1  Pet.  i.  23.     One 

*  Page  208.  '         t  Page  209. 


PREVIOUS    TO    FAITH.  13 

would  think  that  these  plain  texts  should  fully  determine  the 
point  in  dispute ;  for  if  it  is  with  the  word  of  truth,  that 
God  of  his  own  will  begets  or  regenerates  men  ;  if  the 
word  of  God  is  the  very  seed  of  regeneration  ;  and  if  to  be 
born  of  God,  born  of  the  Spirit  (John  i.  13.  chap.  iii.  5.),  and 
to  be  born  of  the  incorruptible  seed  of  the  word,  are  expressions 
of  the  same  import,  then  this  birth  must  be  effected  by  the 
Spirit's  causing  men  to  understand  and  believe  the  word  in 
the  first  instance  ;  for  it  is  certain  that  the  word  can  have 
no  saving  influence  upon  the  heart  previous  to  this.  Mr. 
Fuller  admits  that  "  we  are  as  properly  said  to  be  born 
again  by  the  word  of  God,  as  we  are  said  to  be  born  into 
the  world  by  means  of  our  parents."*  If  so,  then  we  can 
have  no  existence  as  new  creatures  previous  to  the  instru- 
mentality of  the  word,  any  more  than  we  can  have  an  ex- 
istence as  human  creatures  previous  to  the  instrumentality 
of  our  parents. 

Yet  he  does  not  abide  by  this,  but  by  means  of  an  im 
aginary  distinction,  endeavors  to  elude  the  force  of  the  above 
texts,  and  introduce  regeneration  previous  to,  and  altogether 
abstract  from  any  influence  of  the  word  of  God.  He  af- 
firms, "That  the  term  regeneration  in  the  sacred  writings 
is  not  always  used  in  that  strict  sense  in  which  we  use  it  in 
theological  discussion.  Like  every  other  term,  it  is  some- 
times used  in  a  more  strict,  and  sometimes  in  a  more 
general  sense. "f  Granting  this  were  the  case  (as  it  really 
is  not),  how  does  it  determine  in  which  of  these  senses  it 
is  to  be  taken  when  ascribed  to  the  word  of  God  ? 

"  Regeneration  (he  says)  is  sometimes  expressive  of  that 
operation  in  which  the  soul  is  passive  ;  and  in  this  sense 
stands  distinguished  from  conversion,  or  actual  turning  to 
God  by  Jesus  Christ.":}:  This  must  be  his  strict  sense  of 
that  term.     But  where  does  he  ever  find  the  term  regenera- 

♦  Page  210.  t  Ibid.  t  Ibid. 

2 


14  OF  A  SUPPOSED  HOLY  PRINCIPLE 

tion  used  in  this  sense  ?  Perhaps  in  theological,  or  rather 
metaphysical  discussion  ;  but  I  am  confident  it  bears  no 
such  meaning  in  all  the  sacred  writings.*  Regeneration, 
strictly  speaking,  is  not  the  operation  or  agency  of  the  Ho- 
ly Spirit,  btit  the  effect  of  it.  It  is  not  his  working,  but  his 
workmanship.  It  is  a  spiritual  change  produced  on  man, 
as  to  the  sentiments  and  dispositions  of  his  soul,  whereby  he 
is  made,  in  some  measure,  to  perceive  divine  things  as  they 
are,  and  to  be  affected  towards  them  as  he  ought ;  and  there- 
fore cannot,  in  the  nature  of  things,  actually  take  place 
while  the  soul  is  purely  passive,  or  only  physically  acted  up- 
on, like  insensible  or  unconscious  matter.  True,  indeed, 
the  operation  or  agency  of  the  Spirit  must,  in  order  of  na- 
ture, precede  regeneration,  as  a  cause  precedes  its  imme- 
diate effect ;  but  so  must  also  the  influence  of  the  word  of 
God,  to  which  it  is  likwise  ascribed ;  because  the  Spirit  ope- 
rates upon  the  mind  in  and  by  the  word,  which  is  die  in- 
strumental cause  of  regeneration  ;  so  that  in  this  matter  the 
influence  of  the  Spirit  of  truth,  and  of  the  word  of  truth,  co- 
alesce in  one,  and  must  not  be  separated.  To  regenerate 
men,  is  to  beget  them  to  the  faith ;  and  this  faith,  which  is 
the  gift  of  God,  "  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the 
word  of  God,"  Rom.  x.  17,  which  is  the  incorruptible  seed 
whereby  they  are  born  again,  i  Pet.  i.  23.     Whatever  iu- 

•  The  term  {ira\i)ycvt(ria)  regeneration,  occurs  only  twice  in  all  the 
New  Testament.  We  find  it  in  Matt.  xix.  2S.  where  it  signifies  the 
resurrection :  "  Ye  who  have  followed  me,"  viz.  in  this  world,  "in  the 
REGENERATION,"  i.  e.  at  the  resurrection,  •'  when  the  Son  of  man  shall 
sit  in  the  ihone  of  his  glory,  ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones," 
&c.  The  orily  other  place  whe  e  the  word  occurs,  is  Tit.  iii.  5. 
where  it  signifi -s  that  spiritual  purification,  of  which  baptism  is  a  fig- 
ure. But  as  Mr.  Fuller  understands  it  here  in  what  he  calls  a  lar^e 
or  general  sense,  and  as  including  faith,  (page  211,)  he  has  not  left 
himself  a  single  instance  in  Scripture,  where  it  can  be  understood  in 
his  strict  sense,  as  above  stated  ;  and  indeed  it  is  nowhere  to  be  found 
in  such  a  sense  but  in  metaphysical  theology. 


PREVIOUS    TO     FAITH.  15 

fluence  of  the  Spirit,  or  exercise  of  mind,  maybe  supposed 
previous  to  this,  it  is  nowhere  in  Scripture  called  regenera- 
tion, nor  by  any  equivalent  term.  In  other  words,  the 
Scriptures  nowhere  declare  that  any  unbeliever,  while  such, 
is  actually  .regenerated;  and  therefore  Mr.  Fuller's  strict 
sense  of  the  term  re;ieneration,  has  no  foundation  in  the 
word  of  God,  nor  indeed  in  the  nature  of  things. 

But  he  produces  two  texts  for  this  strict  sense  of  it,  and 
observes,  that  "  when  the  term  (regeneration)  is  introduced 
as  a  cause  of  faith,  or  as  that  of  which  believing  in  Jesus  is 
a  proof  (as  it  is  in  John  i.  12,  13,  and  1  John  v.  4.)  we 
may  be  certain  it  stands  distinguished  from  it."*  Yet 
these  texts  hold  forth  no  such  distinction,  far  less  the  whole 
sentiment,  viz.  that  regeneration  is  without  the  word,  and 
previous  to  the  perception  or  belief  of  it.  In  John  i.  12, 
13.  we  are  told  that  those  of  the  Jewish  nation  who  believed 
on  the  name  of  Jesus,  "were  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the 
will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God  ;"  i.  e. 
of  the  will  of  God,  as  opposed  to  the  will  of  man,  and  is  the 
same  with  what  James  declares,  "  Of  his  own  will  begat  he 
us  with  the  word  of  truth,"'  James  i.  18.  The  word  of  truth 
was  first  published  to  them,  and  God,  by  the  sovereign  in- 
fluence of  his  Spirit  concurring  with  that  word,  begat  them 
to  the  faith  of  it,  and  so  gave  them  power  to  become  his 
sons  :  "For  we  are  all  the  children  of  God,  by  faith  "  in 
Christ  Jesus,"  Gal.  iii.  26.  This  is  also  the  sense  of  John 
V.  1.  "  Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is 
bora  of  God;"  not  previous  to  this  belief^  but  in  producing 
it,  as  our  Lord  said  to  Peter  when  he  confessed  this  faith  r 
"  Bless-d  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-jona ;  for  flesh  and  blood 
hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father,  who  is  in 
heaven,"  Matt.  xvi.  17.  The  first  thing  therefore  in  rege- 
neration, is  the  introduction  of  light  into  the  judgment,  where- 

*  Page  200. 


16  OF    A    SUPPOSED    HOLY    PRINCIPLE 

by  the  soul  is  made  to  perceive  and  believe  the  (ruth  and  ex- 
cellency of  divine  things,  and  consequently  to  be  suitaV)ly 
affected  towards  them. 

The  Scriptures  frequently  speak   of  the  mental  powers 
under  the  metaphors  of  bodily  members,  organs,  and  senses, 
such  as  eyes,  ears,  heart,  bowels,  reins,  &c.   even  as  it  as- 
cribes bodily  parts  to  God  himself.     Hence  many,  instead 
of  explaining  these  metaphors  in  a  suitableness  to  the  spirit 
of  man,  affix  such  gross  notions  to  them,  as  are  applicable 
only  to  the  material  part  of  him  ;  and  as  when    the    bodily 
organ  (the  eye,  for  instance,)  is  wanting  or  distempered,  it 
must  first  be  supplied  or  rectified  by  some  physical  o|>era- 
tion  before  it  can  perform  its  office,  so  they  imagine  that 
some  similar  operation  must  be  performed  on  the  soul   pre- 
vious to  the  introduction  of  spiritual  light  into  the  understand- 
ing.    Thus  Mr.  Fuller  speaks  of  God's  first  removing  the 
obstructing  film  from  the  mental  eye,  by  imparting  a  spirit- 
ual relish  for  divine  things.*     But  we  know  that  a  bodily 
taste  or  relish  will  not  remove  a  film  from  the  natural  eye, 
and  it  is  not  easy  to  conceive  how  a  spiritual  relish  for  we 
know  not  what  (were  it  possible  that  such  a  relish  could  ex- 
ist,) will  remove  the  film  from  the  mental  eye.     He  repre- 
sents  this  spiritual  relish,  whereby  the  heart  is  changed  and 
turned  towards  God  previous  to.  the  knowledge   of  him,  as 
some  new  sense  or  faculty  created  in  the  soul,  in  which  the 
intellect  has  little  or  no  concern.     He  compares  it  to  a  deli- 
cate sense  of  propriety,  in  which  the  mind  judges,  as  it  were, 
instinctively  from  a  feeling  of  what  is  proper,  and  says,  "It 
is  by  this  unction  from  the  Holy  One,  that  we  perceive  the 
glory  of  the  divine  character,  the  evil  of  sin,  and  the  love- 
ly fitness  of  the  Saviour;   neither  of  which  can  be  proper- 
ly known  by  mere  intellect,  any  more  than  the   sweetness 
of  honey,  or  the  bitterness  of  wormwood,  can  be  ascertain- 

•  Page  206. 


PREVIOUS    TO    FAITH.  17 

ed  by  the  sight  of  the  eye."*  13ut  if  this  spiritual  relish 
precedes  the  exercise  of  intellect,  or  the  mind's  perception 
of  an  object  (which  is  the  case  supposed),  then  it  is  certain 
it  can  have  no  object,  consequently  cannot  be  a  spiritual 
relish.  We  may,  indeed,  feci  and  relish  objects  of  sense 
without  seeing  them  with  our  eyes,  such  as  the  hardness  of 
a  stone  by  the  touch,  and  the  sweetness  of  honey  by  the 
taste  ;  but  spiritual  objects  cannot  be  felt  or  relished  by  the 
soul,  while  the  judgment  has  no  spiritual  perception  or  know- 
ledge of  them.  Therefore,  to  affirm  that  an  unction  from 
the  Holy  One  makes  us  "  perceive  the  glory  of  the  divine 
character,  the  evil  of  sin,  and  the  lovely  fitness  of  the 
Saviour,"  without  enlightening  the  judgment,  in  the  first 
instance,  appears  to  me  altogether  unintelligible,  and  con- 
trary to  the  plain  declarations  of  the  Scriptures,  viz  :  that 
God  of  his  own  will  begets  men  to  thy  faith,  with  the  word 
of  truth,  and  that  they  are  born  again  of  the  incorruptible 
seed  of  the  word.  So  much  for  Mr.  Fuller's  strict  sense  of 
regeneration. 

With  regard  to  his  large  sense  of  the  term,  viz  :  as  in- 
cluding faith,  he  says,  "  Regeneration,  taken  in  this  large 
sense  of  the  term,  is  undoubtedly  by  the  word  of  God.  It 
is  by  means  of  this  that  a  sinner  is  first  convinced  of  sin, 
and  by  this,  as  exhibiting  mercy  through  Jesus  Christ,  is 
kept  from  despair.  It  is  by  this  only  that  he  can  become 
acquainted  with  the  character  of  the  Being  he  has  offended, 
the  nature  and  demerit  of  sin,  and  the  way  in  which  he 
must  be  saved  from  it.  These  important  truths,  viewed 
with  the  eye  of  an  enlightened  conscience,  frequently  pro- 
duce great  effects  upon  the  soul,  even  previous  to  its  yield- 
ing itself  up  to  Christ.  And  the  impartation  of  spiritual 
life,  or  a  susceptibility  of  heart  to  receive  the  truth,  may 
generally,  if  not  always,  accompany  the  representation  of 

•  Page  212. 
2* 


18  OF     A    SUPPOSED    HOLY    PRINCIPLE 

truth  to  the  mind.  It  was  while  Paul  was  f^ppaking,  that 
the  Lord  opened  the  heart  of  Lydia.  It  is  also  allowed, 
that  when  the  word  is  received  into  the  soul,  and  finds  place 
there,  it  worketh  effectually,  and 'becomes  a  principle  of 
holy  action,  a  well  of  water,  springing  up  to  everlasting 
life."* 

If  by  an  enlightened  conscience,  and  a  susceptibility  of 
heart,  to  receive  the  truth,  he  does  not  mean  any  thing 
previous  to  a  representation  of  truth  to  the  mind,  I  can 
most  heartily  subscribe  to  this  view  of  regeneration,  as  be- 
ing agreeble  to  the  word  of  God.  But  then  I  can  by  no 
means  reconcile  it  with  his  strict  sense  of  regeneration, 
unless  I  could  suppose  that  a  person  is  regenerated  before 
his  first  conviction  of  sin,  and  previous  to  his  being  acquaint- 
ed with  the  character  of  the  Being  he  has  offended,  the  na- 
ture and  demerit  of  sin^  and  the  way  in  which  he  mu^st  be  saved 
from  it ;   all  which,  he  admits,  cwne  by  means  of  the  word. 

He  gives  the  sum  of  what  he  pleads  for  in  these  words  : 
*'  All  I  contend  for  is,  that  it  is  not  by  means  of  a  spiritual 
perception,  or  belief  of  the  gospel,  that  the  heart  is,  for  the 
first  time,  efiectually  influenced  towards  God  ;  for  spiritual 
perception  and  belief  are  represented  as  the  effects,  and  not 
the  causes  of  such  influence."!  If  he  means  that  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Spirit  of  G  od  is  the  cause  of  spiritual  percep- 
tion and  belief,  ve  are  agreed  ;  but  if  he  means,  as  I  sup- 
pose he  does,  that  the  heart  is  effectually  influenced  towards 
God  previous  to  any  true  knowledge  of  him,  or  to  any 
spiritual  perception  and  belief  of  the  truth,  or  to  any  in- 
fluencing motive  whatever  being  presented  to  the  view  of 
the  mind,  such  a  sentiment  appears  to  me  not  only  un- 
scriptural,  but  altogether  irrational  and  absurd. 

He   says,   "  A  spiritual  perception  of  the  glory  of  divine 
things,  is  not  the  first  operation  of  God  upon  the  mind.":j: 

♦  Page  211.        t  Page  211,  212.        t  Page  212. 


PREVIOUS    TO    FAITH.  19 

To  avoid  ambiguity,  it  must  be  noticed  that  the  word  ope- 
ration is  sometimes  used  to  express  the  effect,  at  other  times 
the  cause.     If  he  means  that  spiritual  perception  is  not  the 
first  effect  produced  on  the   mind,  then   the   effect  prior  to 
this  must  be  entirely  of  a  mechanical   or  physical   nature  ; 
for  it  cannot  be  a  moral  effect,  where  no  ideas  are  commu-- 
nicated,  nor  any  object  brought  to   the   view  of  the  mind. 
But  if  by  operation  he  intends  that  divine  energy  or   influ- 
ence, which  is  the  cause  of  regeneration,  it  is  freely  granted 
that  this  must,  in  order  of  nature  (though  not  of  time),  pre. 
cede  that  spiritual  perception  which  is  the  immediate  effect 
of  it ;  but  so  must  also  the  word   of  God,   which   is    the 
means   of  that  effect.     As  to  the  operation   of  the   Spirit, 
whereby  the  truth  is  introduced  into  the  mind,  so  as  to  pro- 
duce its  proper  effects,  we  can  no  more  explain  the  manner 
of  it,  than  we  can  explain  that  creating   operation  whereby 
God  commanded  the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,  or  that 
by  which  he  quickens  the  dead,  to  both  of  which  it  is  com- 
pared, 2  Cor.  iv.  6.    Eph.  ii.  1.     But  we  may  safely  affirm, 
that  there  is  not  any  holy   susceptibility   or  relish  for   the 
truth  subsisting  in  the  human  heart  previous  to   the   influ- 
ence of  the  word.     Indeed,  there  appears  to  be  no  occasion 
for  this ;  for  the  word  of  God,  through  the  effectual  operation 
of  the  Spirit,  is  quick  and  powerful,  sharper  than  any  two- 
edged   sword,  Heb.  iv.  12.     It  finds  its  way  into  the  most 
unsusceptible  and  untoward   mind,  and  breaks  the  stoutest 
and  most  obdurate  heart.      "  Is  not  my  word  like  as  a  fire] 
saith  the  Lord  ;  and  like  a  hammer  that  breaketh  the  rock 
in  pieces?'    Jer.    xxiii.   29.     It  storms  the  heart   in    its 
strongest  holds,  whereby  it  seeks  to  fortify  itself  against  the 
truth.     "  For  the  weapons  of  our  warfare  (says  the  apostle) 
are  not  carnal,  but  mighty  through  God,  to  the  pulling 
down   of  strong    holds  :  casting  down  imaginations,  and 

*  Page  114. 


20  OF  A  SUPPOSED  HOLY  PRINCIPLE 

every  high  thing  that  exalteth  itself  against  the  knowledge 
of  God,  and  bringing  into  captivity  every  thought  to  the 
obedience  of  Christ,"  2  Cor.  x.  4,  6.  Such  passages  do 
not  admit  the  supposition,  that  the  heart  is  possessed  of  any 
principle  of  grace  previous  to  the  influence  of  the  word  by 
the  Spirit. 

If  a  holy  disposition  of  heart  be  previous  to  faith,  it  must 
be  without  it,  and  so  cannot  be  pleasing  to  God  ;  for,  with- 
out faith,  it  is  impossible  to  please  him,  Heb.  xi.  6.  It 
must  be  prior  to  actual  union  with  Christ,  and  while  the 
mind  is  without  divine  ilium ination,  conviction,  or  any 
spiritual  motive,  consequently  is  no  part  of  that  regeneration 
which  is  by  the  incorruptible  seed  of  the  word,  1  Pet.  i.  23. 
nor  of  that  sanctification  through  the  truth  which  Christ 
prays  for,  John  xvii.  17.  This  previous  holy  principle  he 
describes  as  an  "  effectual  change  of  the  bias  of  the  heart 
towards  God,"  as  if  the  bias  of  a  person's  will  and  affec- 
tions could  be  turned  towards  an  object  in  whom  he  does 
not  believe,  and  of  whose  true  character,  as  revealed  in  the 
gospel,  he  is  supposed  as  yet  to  have  no  just  conception. 
This  also  makes  the  doctrine  of  reconciliation  need- 
less, in  order  to  reconcile  the  heart  to  God. 

Further,  if  men  are  regenerated,  and  possessed  of  holy 
dispositions  before  they  believe,  then  they  must  be  godly 
unbelievers, — a  character  unknown  in  the  word  of  God  ; 
and  should  they  die  in  that  state,  they  must  be  saved  with- 
out faith,  for  no  regenerated  holy  person  shall  perish.  Mr. 
Fuller  is  aware  of  this  plain  consequence,  and  endeavors 
to  elude  it.  His  words  are  :  "  If  there  be  a  priority  (i.  e. 
if  regeneration  be  before  faith)  in  order  of  time,  owing  to 
the  want  of  opportunity  of  knowing  the  truth,  yet,  where  a 
person  embraces  Christ,  so  far  as  he  has  the  means  of 
knowing  him,  he  is  in   effect  a  believer."*     This  answer 

•  Pajre  214. 


PREVIOUS    TO    FAITH. 


21 


appears  to  me  exceedingly  confused  and  incobrrent.  The 
point  he  strenuously  contends  for  is,  That  regeneration  is 
before  faith  ;  but  here  he  speaks  of  it  hypothetically,  as  if 
he  were  not  sure  of  it,  "If  there  be  a  priority  in  order  of 
time  ;"  and  he  makes  this  supposed  priority  to  be  only  in 
case  of  the  "want  of  opportunity  of  knowing  the  truth," 
which  imports,  that  none  having  that  opportunity,  are  rege- 
nerated before  they  believe.  Again,  such  as  "  want  an  op- 
portunity of  knowing  the  truth,"  are  yet  supposed  to  em- 
brace Christ  so  far  as  they  have  the  means  of  know- 
ing him  ;"  as  if  they  could  both  want  an  opportunity,  and 
yet  have  the  means  of  knowing  him  ;  or  as  if  they  might 
know  and  embrace  Christ,  without  knowing  the  truth  which 
reveals  him.  Such,  he  says  "  are  in  effect  believers  ;"  an 
expression  which  in  this  connection  I  do  not  understand. 
"  The  Bereans  (he  observes)  searched  the  Scriptures  daily, 
whether  those  things  were  so  ;  therefore  it  is  said,  many  of 
them  believed.  And  had  they  died  while  in  this  noble  pur- 
suit, they  would  not  have  been  treated  as  unbelievers."* 
Yet  it  is  not  said  that  all  of  them  who  searched  the  Scrip- 
tures believed,  but  many  of  them  ;  and  there  is  not  the 
least  foundation  to  suppose  that  any  of  them  who  searched 
the  Scriptures  would  have  been  saved  without  believing  ; 
and  to  affirm  that  men  will  bo  saved  short  of  believing,  ap- 
pears to  me  contrary  to  the  uniform  declarations  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  a  very  unsafe  doctrine,  however  necessary  it  may 
be  to  support  Mr.  Fuller's  hypothesis. 

It  is  alleged  that  the  honest  and  good  heart,  mentioned 
in  the  parable  of  the  sower,  Luke  viii.  15,t  represents  per- 
sons as  regenerated  previous  to  their  hearing  the  word. 
But  such  an  interpretation  is  a  striking  instance,  among 
many,  of  the  abuse  of  Scripture  metaphors,  whereby  doc- 
trines are  grounded  on  similitudes  and  parables  altogether 

♦  Page  214.  t  Page  174. 


22  or  A  SUPPOSED  holy  principle 

foreign  to  their  design.  Because  it  is  a  well-known  truth 
in  husbandry,  that  if  the  soil  is  not  good,  either  by  nature 
or  culture,  before  the  seed  is  sown  into  it,  it  will  not  be 
productive  ;  therefore  it  is  imagined  that  it  must  also  be  a 
truth  in  theology,  that  the  heart  of  man  must  be  honest  and 
good  previous  to  his  hearing  the  word,  otherwise  it  [can 
have  no  proper  effect  upon  him.  But  this  is  far  from  being 
the  design  of  that  parable,  which  is,  to  set  forth  the  different 
reception  and  effects  of  the  word  among  those  who  actually 
hear  it.  Some  consider  this  parable  as  respecting  the  first 
publication  of  the  gospel  to  Jews  and  proselytes,  by  our 
Lord  and  his  apostles,  when  it  found  many  previously  pos- 
sessed of  honest  and  good  hearts,  who  looked  for  redemption, 
and  waited  for  the  consolation  of  Israel ;  such  as  Nathanael, 
Joseph  of  Arimathea,  Cornelius,  and  many  others,  but  this 
honest  and  good  heart  was  not  begotten  in  them  without 
the  word,  but  by  means  of  the  Old  Testament  revelation, 
which  they  believed,  and  by  the  ministry  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist, whose  office  it  was  "  to  make  ready  a  people  prepared 
for  the  Lord,"  Luke  i.  16,  17. 

But,  though  this  affords  a  good  answer,  there  is  no  occa- 
sion to  confine  the  parable  to  the  first  publication  of  the 
gospel ;  for  we  may  easily  trace  the  order  of  things,  by  com- 
paring the  three  Evangelists,  and  harmonizing  them  into 
one  compound  text.  The  first  thing  in  order  is,  the  sow- 
ing of  the  seed,  or  publishing  the  word  of  the  kingdom  : 
A  sower  went  forth  to  sow ;  for  how  should  men  hear  with- 
out a  preacher  ?  Those  to  whom  the  word  was  published 
heard  it.  This  was  common  to  all  the  classes  ;  they  were 
all  hearers.  But  then  the  good  effects  of  hearing  the  word 
was  confined  to  one  class  of  them  ;  and  these  eflfects  are 
threefold,  and  in  the  following  order — 1.  Having  heard  the 
word,  they  understood  it.  Matt.  xiii.  23.  and  received  it, 
Mark  iv.  20.  The  word  of  God,  accompanied  by  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Holy  Spirit,  enlightened  their  minds,  removed 


PREVIOUS    TO    FAITH.  23 

their  prejudices,  and  made  them  perceive  the  import,  evidence, 
and  excellency  of  what  was  declared  ;  so  that  they  under- 
stood and  received  it  as  the  word  of  God,  1  Thess.  ii.  13. 
as  a  faithful  saying,  and  worthy  of  all  acceptation,  1  Tim. 
i.  15.  Thus  they  are  born  again  of  the  incorruptible  seed 
of  the  word,  1  Pet.  i.  23.  and  thus  God,  of  his  own  sove- 
reign will,  begets  them  to  the  taith  with  the  word  of  truth, 
Jam.  i.  18.  for  faith  cometh  by  hearing  the  word  of  God, 
Rom.  X.  17.  and  now,  and  not  till  now,  are  they  possessed 
of  a  principle  of  grace  in  their  hearts. — 2.  Having  heard, 
understood,  and  received  the  word,  they,  in  an  honest  and 
good  heart,  keep  it,  Luke  viii.  15.  i.  e.  they  retain  and 
hold  it  fast,  in  opposition  to  their  letting  it  slip,  like  the 
other  classes  of  hearers  :  The  seed  of  God  remaineth  in 
them,  1  John  iii.  9.  even  that  which  they  have  heard,  chap, 
ii-  24.  They  continue  in  Christ's  word,  and  his  words 
abide  in  them,  John  viii.  31.  ch.  xv.  7.  which  is  to  continue 
in  the  faith,  grounded  and  settled,  and  not  moved  away  from 
the  hope  of  the  gospel  which  they  have  heard,  Col.  i.  23. 
But  that  honest  and  good  heart  in  which  they  keep  (KaTcxnct) 
or  retain  the  word,  did  not  exist  prior  to  their  hearing  and 
understanding  it,  but  was  evidently  produced  by  that  means, 
as  was  shown  on  the  first  particular.  Paul  traces  the  origin 
of  love,  a  pure  heart,  and  a  good  conscience  (which  consti- 
tute the  honest  and  good  heart)  only  back  to  faith  unfeigned, 
which  respects  the  word,  1  Tim.  i.  5.  for  it  is  by  faith  that 
God  purifies  the  heart.  Acts  xv.  9. — 3.  The  last  thintr 
in  order  is,  they  bring  forth  fruit  with  patience,  and  in  va- 
rious degrees,  Luke  viii.  15.  Matt.  xiii.  23.  The  word  of 
God  which  they  have  heard,  understood,  and  received,  effec- 
tually worketh  in  them,  1  Thess.  ii.  13,  amd  bringeth  forth 
fruit  in  them,  since  the  day  they  heard  and  knew  the  grace 
of  God  in  truth,  Col.  i.  6.  This,  therefore,  is  the  order  of 
things  set  forth  in  the  explanation  of  the  parable.  It  is  by 
means  of  the  word  that  the  heart  is  made  honest  and  good, 


24  OF  A  SUPPOSED  HOLY  PRINCIPLE 

thouirh  the  nature   of  the  similitude,  which  is  taken  from 
agriculture,  does  not  permit  it  to  illu.strate  that  particular. 

Mr.  Fuller  says,  "A  spiritual  perception  of  the  "glory 
of  divine  things  appears  to  be  the  first  sensation  of  which 
the  mind  is  conscious ;  but  it  is  not  the  first  operation  of 
God  upon  it."*  If  not,  then  this  first  operation  of  God 
makes  no  impression  upon  the  rational  mind  of  man.  It 
communicates  no  light  to  the  judgment,  no  spiritual  per- 
ception of  divine  things,  nor  any  sensation  respecting 
them  of  which  a  thinking  mind  is  conscious.  Iq  his  opi- 
nion the  uiiderstandiiig  cannot  be  spiritually  enlightened, 
but  in  consequence  of  some  holy  disposition  previously  im- 
planted in  the  heart  by  this  first  operation  ;  and  then  he  ad- 
mits that  spiritual  perception  will  follow  as  the  first  sensation 
of  which  the  mind,  already  regenerated,  is  conscious.  So 
that  what  he  says  of  Mr.  Brine's  previous  principle,  1  think 
will  with  equal  justice  apply  to  his  own  ;  it  is  "  something 
different  from  what  God  requires  of  every  intelligent  crea- 
ture ;"|  for  it  is  plain  that  the  human  intellect  has  no  con- 
cern in  it,  and  it  is  certain  that  God  does  not  require  blind 
disposiiions  of  his  intelligent  creatures.  He  affirms,  that 
the  introduction  of  light  into  the  mind  in  the  first  instance, 
is  a  thing  altogether  impossible  even  with  God  himself,  un- 
til, by  some  other  operation,  he  has  regenerated  the  soul,  al- 
tered its  moral  state  and  disposition,  given  it  a  spiritual 
relish  for  divine  things,  and  produced  a  change  of  heart, 
whereby  it  is  etiectually  influenced  towards  him  ;  and  all 
this  previous  to,  and  without  any  illumination  of  the  mind, 
or  instrumentality  of  the  word  of  God. if 

*  Pa?(>.2r2.  t  Page  127. 

t  Mr.  Fuller's  sentiments  on  this  subject  seem  to  be  formed  upon  the 
scheme  of  Messrs.  Bellamy  and  Hopkins,  two  American  divines,  who, 
thoii^'h  ihey  have  written  many  good  things,  have  overstrained  others 
beyond  the  sober  Scripture  medium,  in  their  opposition  to  Arminian 
and  Anlinomian  speculations.     Mr.  Hopkins,  in  a  sermon  on  John  i. 


PREVIOUS    TO    FAITH.  25 

Though  man  is  a  fallen  depraved  creature,  yet  he  is  still 
possessed  of  intellectual  and  nioi  il  powers,  however  much 
impaired,  otherwise  he  would  not  be  a  rational  moral  agent, 
susceptible  of  instruction,  the  subject  of  law,  or  the  object 

13.  after  havingj  asserted,  That  regeneration  consists  wholly  in  a  change 
of  the  will  or  heart,  and  not  iji  the  intellect  or  faculty  of  understandincr » 
and  that  in  this  operation  the  Spirit  of  God  is  the  only  agent ;  he  pro- 
ceeds to  show,  "  That  this  change  is  wrought  by  the  Spirit  of  God  im- 
mediately. That  is,  it  is  not  effected  by  any  medium  or  means  what- 
ever. I  would  (says  he)  particularly  observe  here,  that  light  and 
truth,  or  the  word  of  God,  is  not  in  any  degree  a  mean  by  which  this 
change  is  eflected.  It  is  not  wrought  by  light — Men  are  first  regene- 
rated in  order  to  introduce  light  into  the  mind  :  therefore  they  are  not 
regenerated  by  light,  or  the  "  truths  oi' God's  word."  He  affirms.  That 
natural  men  may  see  every  thing  in  matters  of  religion  but  the  moral 
beauty  and  excellence  of  divine  things  :  That  this  moral  beauty  is  not 
discerned  by  the  understanding,  nor  can  it  possibly  be  made  the  object 
of  it  by  any  operation  on  the  mind,  or  any  supposed  illumination  what- 
ever, any  more  than  it  is  possible  by  any  operation  on  a  stone  to  bring 
it  to  the  understanding  and  discerning  of  a  man  without  givino-  it  the 
faculty  of  understandmgand  reason.  That,  therefore,  men  are  notre- 
generat'^d  by  the  word  ;  but  the  heart  (i.  e.  the  will)  must  first  be  re- 
newed by  the  immediate  operation  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  giving  it  a 
good  taste,  in  order  to  prepare  it  to  understand  and  receive  the  word. 
See  Hopkins's  Sermon  on  John  i.  13.  with  the  Appendix.  See  also 
Bellamy's  True  Religion  Delineated,  and  his  Essay  on  the  Nature  and 
Glory  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 

To  show  that  men  are  born  of  God,  there  is  certainly  no  occasion  to 
reason  against,  or  rather  flatly  to  contradict  express  Scripture,  by  de- 
nying that  God  begets  them  with  tlie  word  of  truth,  or  that  they  are 
born  again  of  the  incorruptible  seed  of  the  word,  for  both  are  perfectly 
consistent.  And  though  it  is  true  that  the  natural  man  may  speculate 
on  the  truths  of  the  gospel  without  discerning  either  their  true  evi- 
dence, or  their  moral  beauty  and  excellence,  so  as  to  have  a  taste  or  re- 
lish for  them  ;  yet  this  will  never  prove  it  impossible  that  a  good  taste 
should  be  formed  by  a  proper  view  of  divine  things  in  a  spiritually  en- 
lightened judgment.  To  affirm  that  no  enlightening  influence  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  upon  the  understanding  can  have  any  more  effect  in 
forming  a  spiritual  taste,  than  if  it  were  exerted  upon  a  stone,  is  the 
language  of  unhallowed  reasoning,  which  serves  to  exclude  the  under- 

3 


26  OF    A    SUPPOSED    HOLY    PRINCIPLE 

of  praise  or  blame.  In  regeneration  the  Spirit  of  God  does 
not  create  new  powers  or  Ihculties,  but  rectifies  those  al- 
ready in  existence  ;  gives  the  lead  to  the  legitimate  direct- 
ing powers,  which  were  blinded  and  enslaved  by  corrupt 
dispositions,  affections,  and  passions;  and  restores  the  soul 
to  order  and  harmony.  The  leading  faculties  of  the  human 
mind  by  which,  when  it  acts  regularly,  all  the  rest  are  di- 
rected and  governed,  are  the  understanding  or  judgment, 
reason  and  conscience.  These  constitute  his  mental  capaci- 
ty to  receive  instruction,  to  perceive  and  distinguish  truth 
from  its  opposite,  to  discern  (he  fitness  or  unfitness  of  things, 
and  the  moral  qualities  of  actions  and  objects.  But,  not- 
withstanding  these  natural  powers,  such  is  the  blindness  and 
depravity  of  the  human  heart,  that  the  natural  or  animal 
man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God  revealed 
in  the  gospel  ;  for,  judging  of  them  by  the  preconceiv- 
ed principles,  wisdom  and  reasoning  of  a  carnal  mind, 
they  appear  foolishness  to  him  ;  neither  can  he  know  them 
till  he  is  spiritually  enlightened,  because  they  are  spiritual- 
ly discerned.  Therefore  I  conceive  that  the  first  operation 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  regeneration  is  the  introduction  of 
spiritual  light  into  the  understanding  or  judgment,  which  is 
the  same  with  his  opening  the  understanding  to  discern  the 
things  of  the  Spirit  as  revealed  in  the  gospel  in  their  true 
lieht;  for  there  is  no  medium  between  the  introduction  of 
spiritual  light  into  the  mind  and  the  mind's  spiritual  percep- 
tion of  it.  This  spiritual  perception  of  divine  things  is  at- 
tended with  a  persuasion  of  their  truth  and  reality,  and  an 
impression  of  their  supreme  exrellence  and  imj)ortance, 
which  gains  them  immediate  access  to  the  will  and  affec- 

stanHin^  from  being  the  suhji^ct  of  regeneration,  as  well  a?  the  word  of 
God  from  being  the  means  of  it.  In  my  opinion  Mr.  Fuller  would 
have  been  more  profitably  employed  in  consulting  the  Scrif.turo.<?  upon 
this  subject,  than  in  adopting  the  sentiments  and  rtasoniu^s  of  these 
authors. 


PREVIOUS    TO    FAITH.  27 

tions,  exciting  desire,  relish,  choice,  and  esteem.  Thus  the 
soul  is  regenerated  agreeably  to  the  regular  order  of  its  fa- 
culties ;  but  to  maintain  that  the  will  and  affections  are 
changed  previous  to  any  discernment  of  spiritual  things  in 
the  ju  Igment,  is  to  reverse  that  order,  and  is  the  same  as  to 
affirm  that  ihe  soul  relishes,  chooses,  and  loves  without  an 
object ;  that  is,  its  relish,  choice,  and  affection  have  no 
relation  to  any  thing,  consequently  these  exercises  (could 
we  suppose  them  to  exist)  can  have  nothing  of  the  nature 
of  virtue  in  them :  for  it  is  an  undoubted  truth,  that  no 
motion  or  exercise  of  the  will  and  affections  can  be  of  a 
virtuous  and  holy  nature,  but  as  influenced  by  proper  objects 
or  motives. 

Let  it  further  be  observed,  that  the  word  of  God  is  address- 
ed to  men's  understanding,  judgment,  reason,  and  con- 
science, as  the  only  channel  through  which  its  truths  can 
have  any  influence  upon  their  will  and  affections  ;  and  all 
its  doctrines,  precepts,  arguments,  evidences,  and  motives 
proceed  upon  that  principle,  as  might  be  shown  at  large  ; 
but  I  must  draw  to  a  conclusion  of  this  part  of  the  sub- 
ject. 

I  had  said,  that  the  truth  is  no  sooner  perceived  and  be- 
lieved, than  it  takes  possession  of  the  will  and  affections  ;* 
upon  which  Mr.  Fuller  observes,  "  This,  I  should  think,  is 
allowing  that  perception  is  distinct  from  believing,  and 
necessarily  precedes  it."!"     In  order  of  nature,  indeed,  we 

*  The  whole  paragraph  runs  thus  :  "  As  to  the  effects  of  faith  up- 
on the  heart,  such  is  the  important,  interesting,  and  salutary  nature  of 
the  saving  truth  testified  in  the  gospel,  with  its  suitableness  and  free- 
ness  for  the  chief  of  sinners,  thai  it  is  no  sooi.er  perceived  cmd  be- 
lieved than  it  takes  possession  of  the  will  and  affections,  and  becomes 
in  the  soul  the  ground  of  its  hope,  trust,  and  reliance;  the  object  of 
desire,  acceptance,  esteem,  and  joy ;  and  the  principle  of  every  holy, 
active,  and  gracious  disposition  of  heart."  See  Commission,  page  82. 
t  Page  203. 


28  OF  A  SUPPOSED  HOLY  PRINCIPLE 

must  have  a  perception  of  something,  real  or  imaginary,  be- 
fore we  can  believe,  for  belief  must  respect  some  object  in 
the  mind's  view  ;  but  then  we  cannot  perceive  that  object  to 
be  real  or  true  without  believing  it,  because  that  very  per- 
ception is  believing  it.  It  belongs,  therefore,  to  Mr.  Fuller 
to  show,  how  a  spiritual  perception  of  the  glory  of  divine 
truth  is  distinct  from  believing  it  ;  or,  in  other  words,  how 
such  a  perception  of  divine  truth  can  exist  without  including 
in  it  a  perception  of  its  truth  and  reality.  I  am  certain  he 
cannot  show  this  without  reducing  what  he  terms  "  a  spirit- 
ual perception  of  the  glory  of  divine  truth,"  to  a  mere  emp. 
ty  speculation,  in  which  nothing  exists  as  a  reality  in  the 
mind's  view. 

let  he  proceeds  upon  this  distinction,  and  says,  "But  if 
a  spiritual  perception  of  the  glory  of  divine  truth  precede 
believing,  this  may  be  the  same  in  effect  as  regeneration 
preceding  it."*  But  if  he  really  admits  that  a  spi- 
ritual perception  of  the  truth  is  the  same  with  regene- 
ration, then  he,  in  effect,  gives  up  his  argument.  He 
has  all  along  maintained,  that  regeneration  is  previous 
to  a  spiritual  perception  of  divine  things,  and  that  the 
introduction  of  light  into  the  mind  in  the  first  instance 
is  impossible  ;  that  it  consists  in  a  spiritual  relish  for  di- 
vine things,  and  a  chanare  of  heart  whereby  *t  is  effectual- 
ly influenced  towards  God,  previous  to  any  illumination  of 
the  mind,  and  without  the  instrumentality  of  the  word.. 
Therefore,  to  admit  that  a  spiritual  perception  of  the  truth 
is  in  effect  the  same  with  regeneration,  is  to  yield  the  point, 
and  grant  all  that  I  think  worth  contending  for  on  this  head  ; 
for  I  am  certain  there  can  be  no  spiritual  perception  of  the 
truth  without  believing  it. 

But  he  thinks  his  argument  is  entire,  notwithstanding  this 
concession,  if  he  can  only  maintain  the  priority  of  recjene- 

♦  Page  204. 


PREVIOUS    TO    FAITH.  29 

ration  to  faith  ;  and  this  he  attempts  by  separating  a  spirit- 
ual perception  of  the  truth  from  the  belief  of  it,  so  iar  as 
to  make  room  for  a  change  of  heart  between  them.  His 
words  are,  "Allowing  that  the  word  requires  to  be  perceiv- 
ed ere  the  will  and  affections  can  be  changed,  it  does  not 
follow  that  it  must  also  be  believed  for  this  purpose  ;  for 
the  very  perception  itself  may  change  us  into  the  same  im- 
age ;  and,  in  virtue  of  it,  we  may  instantly  with  our  whole 
heart  set  to  our  seal  that  God  is  true."*  This  appears  to 
me  a  very  strange  statement.  There  is  not  a  more  self- 
evident  axiom  than  this,  That  the  human  will  and  affections 
cannot  be  rationally  affected,  much  less  changed  by  any 
truth,  till  it  is  in  some  measure  believed  or  realized  in 
the  mind  ;  yet  Mr.  Fuller,  instead  of  fairly  yielding 
the  point,  or  admitting  that  a  belief  of  the  truth  is 
necessary  to  a  change  of  the  will  and  affections,  will 
rather  maintain  an  absolute  absurdity,  viz  :  That  a 
mere  perception  of  the  truth  without  believing  it,  will 
produce  this  change.  And  by  the  words  in  Italic,  he  seems 
to  ground  this  on  2  Cor.  iii.  IS.  as  if  the  apostle  had  said, 
"  We  all,  with  open  face,  beholding  as  in  a  glass,  the 
glory  of  the  Lord,"  without  believing  it,  "are  changed  in- 
to  the  sams  image."  This  requires  no  answer,  and  the 
matter  having  come  to  this  issue,  I  may  be  excused  from 
pursuing  the  argument  on  this  head  any  further,  and 
shall  only  observe,  that  Mr.  Fuller  can  take  either  side 
of  this  question  as  he  finds  occasion.  In  answering  those 
who  deny  the  belief  of  the  gospel  to  be  saving  faith,  and 
make  it  to  consist  in  coming  to  Christ,  receiving  him,  and 
relying  upon  him  for  acceptance,  he  says,  "  All  this,  in  the 
order  of  things,  follows  upon  believing  the  truth  concerning 
him  ;  no  less  so  than  coming  to  God  follows  a  believing 
that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  a  rewarder  of  them   that  diligently 

♦■  Page  204. 
3* 


30  OF    A    SUPPOSED    HOLY    PRINCIPLE 

seek  him.     We  may,  therefore,"  mark  the  expression,  "  be 

REGENERATED     BY     A     PERCEPTION     AND     RELIEF     OF    THE 

TRUTH,  and,  as  the  immediate  effect  of  it,  come  to  Jesus, 
and  rely  upon  him  for  salvation."*  Here  he  agrees  with 
my  sentiments,  both  as  to  the  nature  of  faith  and  its  influ- 
ence on  regeneration,  which  is  perfectly  inconsistent  with 
all  the  arguments  he  uses  against  me  on  these  particulars. 
What  a  pity  it  is  thnt  such  distinguished  talents  as  Mr.  Ful- 
ler possesses,  should  be  employed  in  this  manner ! 

I  have  now  considered  his  chief  arguments  for  a  previous 
principle  of  grace  in  the  heart,  or  regeneration  before  be- 
lieving, which  he  thinks  necessary  to  the  holy  nature  of 
faith  ;  and  have  shown,  that  whether  he  places  this  supposed 
principle  before  or  after  a  perception  of  the  truth,  it  is  equal- 
ly without  foundation  while  he  hold.^  it  to  be  previous  to  a 
belief  of  the  truth.  What  I  maintain,  in  opposition  to  this 
sentiment,  is  sliortly  this,  That  in  regeneration,  the  Holy 
Spirit,  in  the  first  instance,  by  his  inexplicable  energy, 
gives  the  mind  a  believing  or  realizing  perception  of  the 
truth  as  revealed  in  the  word,  and  thereby  operates  on  the 
will  and  affections,  not  only  in  the  beginning  of  the  change, 
but  in  all  the  subsequent  progress  of  sanctificatir  n  ;  for 
men  are  not  only  born  again  of  the  incorruptible  seed  of  the 
word,  but  are  also  sanctified  through  the  truth,  which  is  the 
word  of  God,  John  xvii.  17. 

We  shall  now  take  notice  of  his  concludino-  reflections 
on  the  consequences  of  the  principles  he  opposes  with  re- 
spect to  addressing  the  unconverted.     He  observes, 

"  First,  li  the  necessity  of  repentance  in  order  to  forgive- 
nesa  be  given  up,  we  shall  not  be  in  the  practice  of  urging 
it  on  the  unconverted."!  I  cannot  conceive  what  ground 
Mr.  Fuller  has  to  suppose,  that  those  whom  he  opposes 
have  given  up  the  necessity  of  repentance  in  order  to  for- 

•  Page  202,  203.  t  Page  214 


PREVIOUS    TO    FAITH.  31 

giveness.  However  negligent  I  may  be  in  urging  sinners 
to  repentance,  it  has  always  been  my  firm  belief,  that  not 
only  the  unconverted,  but  even  the  converted  themselves, 
need  often  to  b*^  called  to  repentance,  and  that  in  order  to 
forgiveness.  He  has  seen  as  much  of  my  writings  as  fully 
refutes  this  mis^representation,  and  therefore  it  cannot  pass 
for  a  mere  mistake.  I  am  afraid  there  will  be  occasion  for 
some  more  remarks  of  this  kind  before  we  have  done. 

He  assigns  the  reasons  why  we  must  thus  give  up  repent- 
ance in  order  to  forgiveness,  "  We  shall  imagine  it  will 
be  leading  souls  astray  to  press  it  before,  and  in  order  to  be- 
lieving ;  and  afterwards  it  will  be  thought  unnecessary,  as 
all  that  is  wanted  will  come  of  itself."*  So  that,  according 
to  him,  we  cannot,  consistently  with  our  principles,  press 
repentance  either  on  the  converted  or  unconverted.  Yet  I 
find  it  perfectly  consistent  with  my  principles  to  press  re- 
pentance  on  all  to  whom  the  gospel  is  preached ;  for,  though 
I  know  that  none  will  truly  repent  but  those  who  believe, 
yet  the  gospel  doctrine  of  salvation,  with  men's  need  of  it, 
being  first  declared,  a  reasonable  foundation  is  laid  for  call- 
ing all  who  hear  it  to  repentance,  and  to  urge  this  by  every 
argument  and  motive  which  the  word  of  God  affords. 

But  I  own  that,  upon  Mr.  Fuller's  plan,  I  should  be  very 
much  embarrassed  in  pressing  true  repentance  on  the  un- 
converted. He  had  said  before,  that  "It  does  not  come  up 
to  the  Scripture  representation  to  say,  repentance  is  a  fruit 
of  faith ;"  f'  and  here  he  says,  repentance  must  be  pressed 
upon  the  unconverted  before,  and  in  order  to  believing. 
Now,  my  difficulty  lies  here.  According  to  this  order  of 
things,  I  am  debarred,  in  urging  repentance,  from  using  any 
arguments  or  motives  drawn  from  the  gospel ;  for  it  is  cer- 
tain that  such  motives  cannot  possibly  have  any  influence 
without  faith,  or  till  they  are  first  believed,  and,  according  to 

♦  Page  214,  215.  t  Page  173. 


32  OF    A    SUPPOSED    HOLY    PRINCIPLE 

him,  they  cannot  be  believed  till  men  first  truly  repent ;  for 
^hey  must  repent  before,  and  in  order  to  believing.  So  that 
his  scheme  renders  the  principles  and  motives  of  the  gos- 
pel altogether  useless  as  to  their  influence  on  repentance, 
and  therefore  can  with  no  propriety  be  used  for  that  purpose. 
From  all  this  it  plainly  follows,  that  the  gospel  itself  should 
not  be  preached  to  men  till  they  repent. 

But  is  it  not  necessary  that  some  principles  should  be  be- 
lieved previous  to  repentance,  and  as  the  means  of  produc- 
ing it?  Yes  ;  he  admits  "that  a  conviction  of  the  being 
and  attributes  of  God  must,  in  the  order  of  nature,  precede 
repentance  ;  because  we  cannot  repent  for  oflending  a  be- 
ijig  of  whose  existence  we  doubt,  or  of  whose  character 
we  have  no  just  conception  :  but  the  faith  of  the  gospel — is 
represented  in  the  New  Testament  as  implying  repentance."* 
There  is  no  dispute  about  whether  the  faith  or  belief  of  the 
gospel  implies  repentance,  as  its  inseparable  concomitant 
or  immediate  effect :  nay,  1  can  admit  that  when  faith  first 
takes  place  in  the  mind,  it  imports  repentance,  or  a  change 
of  mind,  as  the  word  fieravoia  signifies.  It  is  a  change  from 
darkness  to  light;  from  blindness,  prejudice,  and  unbelief, 
to  a  spiritual  perception  and  conviction  of  the  truth  ;  and 
it  is  by  convincing  men  of  the  truth  concerning  Jesus,  that 
the  Spirit  convinceth  them  of  sin,  because  they  believe  not 
in  him.  See  John  xvi.  9.  compared  with  Acts  ii.  36,  37. 
But  the  point  he  wishes  to  establish  is  this,  that  true  repent- 
ance is  previous  to  the  belief  of  the  gospel,  and  is  produced 
by  a  conviction  of"  the  being  of  God,  and  a  just  conception 
of  his  character;  which  last  he  supposes  may  be  obtained 
without  the  gospel. 

I  freely  admit  that  men  have  some  natural  notices  of  God 
and  of  his  law  in  their  conscience,  sufficient  to  constitute 
them  accountable  creatures,  to  render  their  guilt  inexcusa- 


*  Page  173. 


PREVIOUS    TO    FAITH.  33 

ble,  and  to  make  them  susceptible  of  conviction ;  and  if 
they  have  access  to  the  revealed  law  of  God,  their  know- 
ledge of  his  character,  of  their  duty,  of  their  guilt,  and  con- 
sequently of  their  danger,  must  be  greatly  enlarged.  This 
may  awaken  in  some  strong  convictions  of  sin,  and  a  fear 
of  divine  punishment,  which,  if  it  does  not  drive  them  into 
utter  despair,  may  produce  some  outward  reformation  of 
life,  and  even  some  struggles  against  heart  sins,  in  hopes  of 
obtaining  the  favor  of  God  by  these  things.  Yet  all  this 
may  be  without  any  true  love  to  God  and  holiness,  or  any 
real  hatred  of  sin  itself,  but  only  of  its  punishment.  This 
is  by  some  called  legal  repentance,  because  produced  only 
by  the  law  ;  and  if  this  is  that  repentance  which  Mr.  Ful- 
ler pleads  for,  I  have  no  objection  to  his  placing  it  before 
the  belief  of  the  gospel.  All  I  contend  for,  is,  that  it  is  not 
true  repentance,  or  what  the  Scripture  calls  repentance  unto 
life,  which,  together  with  a  humbling  conviction  of  sin  and 
its  desert,  necessarily  implies  an  apprehension  and  belief  of 
the  mercy  of  God,  through  Christ,  as  revealed  in  the  gos- 
pel. 

I  may  justly  question  if  ministers  of  the  gospel  are 
warranted  to  urge  repentance  on  their  hearers,  as  a  pre-re- 
quisite  to  faith.  There  is  no  example  of  any  such  thing  in 
the  New  Testament.  All  the  calls  to  repentance  stand 
connected  with  preaching  the  go?pel,  which  contains  the 
most  powerful  persuasives  to  it ;  and  there  is  no  instance 
of  any  complying  with  these  calls,  but  such  as  believed  it. 
While,  therefore,  ministers  call  on  sinners  to  repent,  if  they 
wish  that  this  may  have  effect,  they  must  also  at  the  same 
time,  after  the  example  of  the  first  preachers,  call  on  them  to 
believe  the  gospel,  without  which  their  minds  are  not  prin- 
cipled for  true  repentance,  whatever  conviction  of  guilt  and 
terror  may  be  produced. 

Though  repentance  ought  to  be  urged  upon  all  who  hear 
the  gospel,  and  though  none  believe   it  who  do  not  repent ; 


34  OF    A    SUPPOSED    HOLY    PRINCIPLE 

yet  I  strongly  suspect  that  it  would  be  leading  souls  astray, 
to  press  repentance  upon  them  before,  and  in  order  to  their 
believing  the  gospel.  Should  a  preacher  keep  strictly  to 
this  order  of  things,  and  speak  out  plainly,  the  tenor  and 
spirit  of  his  address  must  be  something  to  the  following  ef- 
fect : — "  As  for  you,  the  unconverted  part  of  my  hearers,  I 
have  no  authority  to  preach  the  gospel  to  you  in  your  present 
state.  To  you  the  word  of  this  salvation  is  not  as  yet  sent. 
You  are  not  prepared  or  qualified  for  it ;  for  you  are  nothing 
but  mere  sinners,  and  no  sort  of  encourasjement  or  hope  is 
held  out  in  all  the  book  of  God  to  any  sinner  as  such  con- 
sidered. It  is  only  to  the  penitent  that  the  gospel  is  to  be 
preached  ;  for  to  such  only  does  it  hold  out  its  golden  scep- 
tre.* You  have  therefore  nothing  to  do  with  the  gospel  in 
the  first  instance  :  nor  is  it  your  immediate  duty  to  believe 
it,  nor  even  to  take  encouragement  from  it  to  repent, 
which  supposes  your  believing  it.  Let  me  therefore,  in  the 
first  place,  call  your  attention  to  a  previous  duty  ;  a  duty 
which  you  must  perform  before,  and  in  order  to  believing  ; 
and  that  is,  that  you  sincerely  and  heartily  repent  of  all  your 
sins  ;  and  when  you  have  performed  this  aright,  from  a 
principle  of  disinterested  love  to  God,  and  a  thorough  ha- 
tred of  sin,  as  such,  you  may  then  venture  to  believe  the 
gospel-testimony  concerning  Christ,  and  the  way  of  salva- 
tion through  him,  and  rely  upon  him  accordingly."  This 
appears  to  me  to  destroy  the  freedom  of  the  gospel  ;  for  it 
brings  the  word  of  faith  nigh  to  those  only  who  view  them- 
selves as  converted,  and  sets  it  at  a  distance  not  only  from 
the  stout-hearted,  but  also  from  the  self-condemned,  who 
can  find  nothing  good  in  themselves,  as  a  ground  of  en- 
couragement ;  and  so  it  lays  an  insuperable  bar  in  the  way 
of  faith,  consequently  prevents  genuine  repentance. 

A  conviction  of  guilt  and  danger  by  the  law,  though  it  ought 

♦  First  edit.  Pref.  p.  8. 


PREVIOUS    TO    FAITH.  35 

to  be  urged,  will  not  by  itself  produce  true  repentance.  It 
is  by  exhibiting  the  free  grace  and  pardonino;  mercy  of 
God,  and  the  promise  of  the  everlasting  covenant,  the  sure 
mercies  of  David,  that  the  wicked  and  unrighteous  are  call- 
ed and  encouraged  to  forsake  their  evil  ways  and  thoughts, 
and  to  turn  unto  the  Lord,  Isa.  Iv.  1 — 8.  It  was  by  the 
gospel  which  John  the  Baptist  preached,  that  any  of  his 
hearers  were  brought  to  real  repentance.  See  Luke  i.  76, 
77.  John  i.  7  15,  16,  17,  18,  29,  34.  chap.  iii.  35,  36. 
Acts.  xix.  4.  It  was  by  the  gospel  which  Peter  preached 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost  that  three  thousand  souls  were  both 
convicted  and  converted,  Acts  ii.  It  was  by  "  the  minis- 
try of  reconciliation,  to  wit,  that  God  was  in  Christ,  recon- 
ciling the  world  to  himself,  not  [imputing  their  trespasses 
unto  them,"  that  Paul  and  his  fellow-labourers  besought 
and  prayed  men,  in  Christ's  stead,  to  be  reconciled  unto 
God,  2  Cor.  v.  18,  19,  2U.  The  truth  is,  these  first  mes- 
sengers of  Chriht  did  not  distrust  the  efficacy  of  the  gospel, 
but  considered  it  as  mighty  through  God,  to  pull  down 
strong  holds,  and  as  powerful  both  to  wound  and  to  heal. 
They  viewed  it  as  furnished  both  with  the  terrors  of  the 
Lord,  to  persuade  men,  ver.  11.  and  with  the  allurements  of 
his  love  and  grace,  to  gain  upon  their  hearts  and  reconcile 
them  unto  God.  But  Mr.  Fuller  proceeds  to  another  con- 
sequence : 

"  Secondly,  For  the  same  reason  that  we  give  up  the  ne- 
cessity of  repentance,  in  order  to  forgiveness,  we  may  give 
up  all  exhortations  to  things  spiritually  good,  as  means  of 
salvation."*  Though  I  do  not  agree  with  Mr.  Fuller,  that 
repentance  before  believing,  and  in  order  to  it,  is  connected 
with  forgiveness,  for  I  know  of  no  promise  of  forgiveness 
to  an  unbelieving  penitent ;  yet  1  have  already  shown,  that 
I  hold  the  necessity  of  true  repentance,  in  order  to  forgive- 

♦  Pa":e  215. 


36  OF  A  SUPPOSED  HOLV  PRINCIPLE 

ness,  and  have  also  hinted  that  Mr.  Fuller  must  know  this. 
Let  us  now  attend  to  his  other  consequence ;  he  says, 
"  For  the  same  reason,  we  may  give  up  all  exhortations  to 
things  spiritually  good,  as  means  of  salvation."  This,  in- 
deed, is  not  a  direct  assertion  that  we  do  so  ;  but  mark  what 
follows  :  "  Indeed,  Mr.  M'Lean  seems  prepared  for  this 
consequence.  If  I  understand  him,  he  does  not  approve  of 
unconverted  sinners  being  exhorted  to  any  thing  spiritually 
good,  any  otherwise  than  as  holding  up  to  them  the  lan- 
o-uaire  of  the  law,  for  convincing  them  of  sin.  It  is  thus  he 
answers  the  question.  Are  unbelievers  to  be  exhorted  to 
obedience  to  God's  commandments?  referring  us  to  the  an- 
swer of  our  Lord  to  the  young  ruler,  which  directed  him  to 
keep  the  commandments,  if  he  would  enter  into  life."* 
Here  he  affirms  that  I  disapprove  of  unconverted  sinners 
being  exhorted  to  any  thing  spiritually  good  ;  and,  to  prove 
this  charge,  he  refers  his  readers,  at  the  bottom  of  the 
page,  to  a  pamphlet,  enthled  Simple  Truth  Vindicated,  page 
21,  second  edit,  written  about  thirty-six  years  ago  by  Mr. 
John  Barnard  of  London.  But  did  any  inform  Mr.  Fuller 
that  I  was  the  author  of  that  pamphlet  1  or  can  he  show, 
from  any  part  of  my  writings,  that  I  hold  the  sentiment 
which  he  here,  without  the  least  evidence,  imputes  to  me? 
No  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  was  possessed  of  lull  evidence 
that  I  hold  no  such  sentiment.  To  my  certain  knowledge 
he  has  seen  and  read  my  Thoughts  on  the  Calls  and  Invita- 
tions of  the  Gospel,  published  first  in  the  Missionary  Maga 
zine,  Nos.  II.  III.  IV.  V.  and  afterwards  more  fully  in  a 
separate  pamphet.  He  knew  this  to  be  my  performance,  in 
which  I  combat  the  very  sentiment  he  here  attributes  to 
me,  and  maintain,  that  the  word  of  God  calls  upon  uncon- 
verted sinners  to  repent,  believe,  be  converted,  to  orsake 
their  evil  ways  and  thoughts,  and  to  return  unto  the  Lord, 

♦  Page  215. 


PREVIOUS    TO    FAITH.  37 

and  call  upon  him  ;  and  have  endeavored  to  answer  at  some 
length  the  chief  objections  brought  against  this.  I  have  al. 
so  briefly  touched  on  this  subject  in  my  Treatise  on  the 
Commission,  p.  86 — 89,  and  in  The  Belief  of  the  Gospel 
saving  Faith,  p.  35 — 41,  56,  first  edit,  which  he  has  also 
seen.  I  am  therefore  utterly  at  a  loss  how  to  account  for 
this  mistake,  and  especially  for  his  declining  afterwards  to 
rectify  it  publicly,  though  desired  by  his  friend.  But  he 
proceeds  upon  false  ground,  and  says  : 

"It  is  easy  to  perceive  that  Mr.  M's  scheme  requires  this 
construction  of  the  exhortations  of  the  Bible;  for  if  he  al- 
low that  sinners  are  called  to  the  exercise  of  any  thing  spi- 
ritually good,  in  order  to  their  partaking  of  spiritual  bless- 
ings, he  must  give  up  his  favorite  notion  of  God's  justify- 
ing men  while  in  a  state  of  enmity  against  him."*  I  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  former  part  of  this  quotation,  but  only 
with  what  he  calls  my  favourite  notion,  viz.  "  That  God 
justifies  men  while  in  a  state  of  enmity  against  him."  But 
this  is  so  far  from  being  my  favorite  notion,  that  it  never 
once  entered  into  my  heart.  I  indeed  affirm,  upon  the  au- 
thority of  the  inspired  apostle,  that  justification  is  "  to  him 
that  worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  the 
UNGODLY,"  Rom.  iv.  5.  Yet  I  never  supposed  that  any, 
from  the  moment  of  their  thus  believing,  are  in  a  state  of 
enmity  against  God,  or  that  God  justifies  them  while  in  that 
state.  So  that  this  is  altogether  a  misrepresentation  ;  but 
more  of  this  afterwards. 

"  Mr.  M-Lean  (he  says)  tell  us  in  the  same  page,"  (i.  e. 
page  21,  of  Barnard's  Simple  Truth,)  'Mhat  there  is  no 
promise  of  life  to  the  doing  of  any  good  thing,  except  all 
the  commandments  be  kept."!  Though  1  have  no  concern 
in  this,  yet  I  must  observe,  that  if  Mr.  Barnard,  by  doing, 
means   working,   in  order   to   obtain  justification  by   the 

♦  Page  215,  21G.  t  Page  21C. 


S8  OF  A  SUPPOSED  HOLY  PRINCIPLE 

works  of  the  law,  he  is  certainly  right  in  saying  that  no 
doing  will  answer  this  purpose,  except  all  the  command- 
ments be  kept ;  for  ''the  law  is  not  of  faith,"  but  its  condi- 
tion of  life,  as  contrasted  with  that  of  the  gospel,  is,  "  That 
the  man  who  doeth  those  things,  shall  live  by  them  ;"  while 
it  "curseth  every  one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  writ- 
ten in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them."  Rom.  x.  5.  Gal. 
iii.  10,  12.  But  I  must  observe,  that  Mr.  Fuller  gives  the 
very  same  view  of  our  Lord's  answer  to  the  young  ruler 
that  Mr.  Barnard  does  ;  his  words  are,  "  That  to  which  the 
young  ruler  was  directed,  was  the  producing  of  a  righteous- 
ness adequate  to  the  demands  of  the  law,  which  was  natu- 
rally impossible  ;  and  our  Lord's  design  was  to  show  its 
impossibility,  and  thereby  to  convince  him  of  the  need  of 
gospel-mercy."*  What  our  Lord  directs  the  young  ruler 
to  do,  was,  to  keep  the  commandments,  to  sell  what  he  had, 
and  give  to  the  poor,  and  to  take  up  his  cross,  and  follow 
him.  Now,  if  his  doing  these  things  was  naturally  impos- 
sible (as  Mr.  Fuller  affirms,)  then,  according  to  his  own 
reasoning,!  the  young  ruler  was  under  no  obligation  to  do 
them,  it  was  not  his  duty,  and  he  was  perfectly  innocent  in 
neglecting  them. 

Having  mentioned  some  Scripture  calls  to  faith  and  re- 
pentance, he  observes,  "  That  if  Mr.  M'Lean  was  called  to 
visit  a  dying  sinner,  he  would  be  careful  not  to  use  any 
such  language  as  this  ;  or,  if  he  did,  it  must  be  ironically, 
teaching  him  what  he  must  do  on  his  own  self  justifying 
principles,  to  gain  eternal  life.  If  he  be  serious,  he  has 
only  to  state  to  him  what  Christ  has  done  upon  the  cross, 
and  assure  him,  that  if  he  believes  it,  he  is  happy."J  I 
should  reckon  it  a  piece  of  wanton  cruelty  to  speak  ironi- 
cally to  a  dying  sinner  on  the  concerns  of  his  soul ;  but  I 
would  tell  him  seriously,  that  he  could  not  be  justified  by  the 

•Page  158.  t  Page  115— 124.  t  Page  217. 


PREVIOUS    TO    FAITH.  d§ 

works  of  the  law,  because  that  required  perfect  sinless  obe- 
dience ;  and  having  shown  him  his  guilty  and  lost  condi- 
tion, I  would  at  the  same  time  set  before  him  the  gospel-re- 
medy, as  the  sole,  the  free,  and  immediate  ground  of  hope 
for  perishing  sinners  ;  nor  would  I  hesitate,  from  any  no- 
tion of  his  being  unqualified  or  unprepared  for  Christ,  or 
destitute  of  a  previous  holy  principle,  "to  state  to  him  what 
he  has  done  upon  the  cross,  and  assure  him,  that  if  he  be- 
lieves it,  he  is  happy." 

Mr.  Fuller  here  seems  sensible  that  he  has  gone  rather  too 
far,  and  therefore  instantly  checks  himself ;  "Far  be  it  from 
me,"  he  says,  "  that  I  should  disapprove  of  an  exhibition  of 
the  Saviour  as  the  only  foundation  of  hope  to  a  dying  sin- 
ner, or  plead  for  such  directions  as  fall  short  of  believing 
in  him.  In  both  these  particulars  I  am  persuaded  Mr. 
M'Lean  is  in  the  right ;  and  that  all  those  counsels  to  sin- 
ners, which  are  adapted  only  to  turn  their  attention  to  the 
workings  of  their  own  hearts,  to  their  prayers,  or  their  tears, 
and  not  to  the  blood  of  the  cross,  are  delusive  and  danger- 
ous."* But  if  these  are  Mr.  Fuller's  real  and  fixed  senti- 
ments, for  what  end  did  he  write  his  Appendix  ?  Is  not 
the  most  of  it  adapted  to  turn  the  attention  of  sinners  to  the 
workings  of  their  own  hearts  instead  of  the  blood  of  the 
cross  ?  Hereby  they  are  taught  that  they  must  be  regene- 
rated, and  have  their  hearts  turned  effectually  towards  God 
without  the  word,  and  before  they  are  illuminated  or  have 
a  perception  of  the  truth,  and,  at  any  rate,  previous  to  their 
believing  it.  That  they  must  truly  repent  before  they  be- 
lieve in  Christ,  and  in  order  to  it.  That  justifying  faith  it- 
self is  a  persuasion  influenced  by  a  previous  moral  state  of 
the  heart  and  partaking  of  it ;  a  holy  exercise  of  the  soul,  de- 
pending upon  choice,  implying  repentance,  and  including 
love  and  other  holy  afiections.     That   God  does  not  justify 

*  Page  217. 


40  OF    A    SUPPOSED    HOLY    PRINCIPLE 

the  ungodly,  though,  however  godly  they  are,  he  does  not 
impute  it  to  them  for  righteousness,  &c.  Now,  as  all  these 
things  respect  the  holy  state,  dispositions,  affections,  and 
exercises  of  the  heart :  and  as  they  are  all  stated  as  previous 
qualifications  in  the  sinner,  and  placed  in  a  conditional 
point  of  view  between  him  and  the  Saviour ;  so  all  the  coun- 
sels and  directions  given  to  sinners  concerning  them  in 
that  view  must  have  an  infallible  tendency  to  turn  their  at- 
tention, in  the  first  instance,  to  the  workings  of  their  own 
hearts,  and  not  to  the  work  finished  by  Christ  on  the  cross, 
consequently  as  Mr.  Fuller  admits,  must  be  "  delusive  and 
dangerous." 

But  then  he  asks,  "  Does  it  follow  that  they  are  to  be  ex- 
horted  to  nothing  spiritually  good,  unless  it  be  for  their 
conviction  ?"*  As  I  have  given  no  occasion  for  such  a 
question,  so  it  lies  not  on  me  to  answer  it.  I  may,  how- 
ever, observe,  that  when  the  gospel  is  declared  to  sinners, 
a  foundation  is  laid  for  exhorting  them  not  only  to  faith  and 
repentance,  but  to  every  thing  that  is  spiritually  good  in  its 
own  place  and  order.  Yet  I  see  no  ground  for  exhorting 
them  to  any  thing  short  of  believing  immediately,  or  which 
does  not  suppose  it ;  far  less  for  directing  them  to  seek  af- 
ter certain  previous  qualifications  to  fit  them  for  Christ,  or 
to  warrant  their  believing  on  him. 

He  imagines  that  "Mr.  M'Lean,  to  be  consistent,  must 
not  seriously  exhort  a  sinner  to  come  off  from  those  refuges 
of  lies,  to  renounce  all  dependence  on  his  prayers  and  tears, 
and  to  rely  upon  Christ  alone,  as  necessary  to  justification, 
lest  he  make  him  a  pharisee."f  From  what  has  been  al- 
ready said,  the  reader  will  perceive  that  this  requires  no 
answer  from  me.  Such  exhortations  are  included  in  the 
exhortation  to  faith  itself.  But  if  he  means  them  as  exhor- 
tations  to  some  holy  exercises  previous  to  faith,  then  he 

♦  Page  217.  t  Ibid. 


FREVIOUS    TO    FAITH.  41 

must  suppose  that  a  sinner  will  come  off  from  his  false  re- 
fuges before  he  knows  the  true  refuge  ;  and  that  he  will 
renounce  all  dependence  on  his  prayers  and  tears  before  he 
perceives  any  better  foundation  to  depend  on.  If  Christ  is 
held  forth  as  a  free  and  immediate  Saviour  to  the  guilty, 
such  exhortations  are  very  proper,  and  likely  to  be  under- 
stood ;  but  a  preacher  may  so  dwell  upon  the  active  exer- 
cises of  the  mind  in  coming  off,  renouncing,  humbling 
one's  self,  &c.  as  to  counteract  the  very  design  of  such  ex- 
hortations. How  free  and  gracious  is  our  Lord's  invitation, 
"  Come  unto  me  all  ye  that  labor,  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I 
will  give  you  rest !"  Yet  some  preachers  have  discovered 
such  a  variety  of  arduous  exercises  imported  in  the  w^ord 
come,  as  to  lay  very  great  obstacles  in  the  sinner's  w^ay  to 
Christ,  and  so  to  increase  the  burden  of  those  who  are 
heavy  laden,  instead  of  directing  them  immediately  to  the 
Saviour  for  rest  to  their  souls.  This  is  the  tendency  of  all 
those  exhortations  and  labored  directions  how  to  perform 
what  is  called  the  great  work  of  believing  in  order  to  be 
justified  :  and  this  is  the  natural  effect  of  the  doctrine 
which  teaches  sinners  that  they  must  be  true  penitents,  and 
possessed  of  holy  dispositions  of  heart  previous  to  their  be- 
lieving; and  that  their  belief  cannot  be  genuine,  unless 
it  arise  from  this  moral  state  of  the  heart,  and  partake  of  it. 
Calls  and  exhortations  to  believe  are  both  proper  and  ne- 
cessary when  men  are  told  what  to  believe,  and  upon  what 
grounds,  without  which  all  the  preacher's  vociferations  are 
but  empty  and  unmeaning  noise :  but  the  gospel  is  much 
perverted  when  faith  is  represented  under  the  idea  of  acting 
or  working,  and  in  this  view  urged  upon  sinners  in  order 
to  their  justification  ;  for  this  is  the  reverse  of  calling  them 
to  believe  in  the  sufliciency  of  Christ's  work  to  justify  them, 
and  so  must  necessarily  draw  their  attention  off  from  that 
to  seek  after  justification  by  some  exertions  or  exercises  of 


42  OF    A    SUPPOSED    HOLY    PRINCIPLE,    ETC. 

their  own,  of  a  very  different  nature  from  believing  the  gos- 
pel. 

Having  considered  Mr.  Fuller's  doctrine  respecting  a 
principle  of  grace  in  the  heart  previous  to  faith,  together 
with  his  concluding  reflections,  I  proceed  now  to 


QUESTION  II. 


WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH    INCLUDES    IN    ITS    NATURE 
ANY    THING    MORE    THAN    A    BELIEF    OF    THE    GOSPEL  ? 

In  my  Treatise  on  the  Commission,  p.  74 — 83,  and  in 
a  pamphlet  entitled,  "  The  Belief  of  the  Gospel  saving 
Faith,"  I  think  I  have  sufficiently  shown  and  proved  from 
Scripture,  that  justifying  faith  is  neither  more  nor  less  than 
a  belief  of  the  gospel,  or  of  God's  testimony  concerning  his 
Son ;  and  have  also  taken  notice  of  the  principal  objec- 
tions to  this  view  of  it.  Therefore,  instead  of  transcribing 
what  I  have  already  advanced,  I  must  refer  the  reader  to 
these  publications,  where  he  will  find  my  sentiments  on 
this  subject  in  their  own  proper  order  and  connection.  In 
the  mean  time,  as  Mr.  Fuller  has  given  a  very  just  and 
scriptural  account  of  faith  in  the  first  edition  of  his  book  on 
"  The  Gospel  Worthy  of  all  Acceptation,"  (which  I  have 
perused  of  late  with  more  attention  than  formerly),  I  cannot 
give  a  better  view  of  my  own  sentiments  on  this  subject 
than  by  transcribing  his. 

"Faith  (says  he)  appears  always  to  carry  in  it  the  idea  of 
a  crediting  some  testimony  where  intuitive  evidence  cannot 
be  obtained."  This  he  confirms  by  what  is  said  of  the 
Thessalonians,  Our  testimony  among  you  was  believed,  2 


44  WHETHER   JUSTIFYING    FAITH 

Thess.  i.  10.  "And  thinks  that  no  better  definition  can  be 
given  of  true  faith  than  that  which  is  given  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  himself  in  2  Thess.  ii.  13,  The  belief  of  the 
TRUTH,"  p.  10.  In  answering  objections  to  this  definition, 
he  grants  that  true  faith  is  the  belief  of  Scripture  proposi- 
tions, because,  to  believe  a  proposition  is  to  believe  the  thing 
or  truth  conveyed  by  it,  p.  21.  He  admits  that  "believing, 
simply  considered,  is  a  mere  natural  act ;  but  that  believing 
such  things  as  the  gospel  reveals,  must  be  a  spiritual  act." 
He  also  allows  that  it  is  "  a  rational  act,  excited  by  rational 
evidence,"  and  thinks  it  is  "  no  reproach  to  true  faith  to  be 
so  represented."  That  "  if  it  be  supported  by  evidence  at 
all,  it  must  be  a  rational  act ;"  and  that  "  nothing  deserves 
the  name  of  faith  but  what  "  is  so  supported,"  p.  25,  26. 
Further,  he  distinguishes  true  faith  from  "the  actual  out- 
going of  the  soul  towards  Christ  for  salvation  in  a  way  of 
fleeing  to  him,  receiving  him,  resting  on  him,"  &c.  These 
things,  he  says,  are  "'distinct  from  the  belief  of  the  truth  as 
an  inseparable  effect  is  distinct  from  its  cause."  And 
even  trusting  in  Christ  he  considers  as  "  an  immediate  ef- 
fect of  believing  what  God  says  concerning  him." — That 
<^  it  does  not  appear,  strictly  speaking,  to  be  faith,  but  its 
immediate  effect — an  inseparable  attendant  on  it ;  but  seems 
to  be  distinct  from  it,"  p.  22,  23. — [Here,  it  must  be  owned, 
there  is  a  sufficient  niceness  of  distinction.]  Lastly,  he  ar- 
gues for  this  simple  view  of  faith  from  the  plainness  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  from  the  impossibility  of  understanding  them, 
had  the  sacred  writers  used  this  term  in  an  uncommon  sense. 
"This  view  of  faith  (he  says)  seemsto  be  plain  and  easy  to 
be  understood,  and  does  not  embarrass  our  minds  with  a 
number  of  words  without  ideas.  Great  and  glorious  as  the 
matter  contained  in  Scripture  is,  Protestants  commonly 
maintain  that  it  is  set  forth  in  language  plain  and  intelligi- 
ble— that  the  inspired  writers  made  use  of  terms  in  common 
use  in  the  aflTairs  of  life  adapted  even  to  the  understandings 


INCLUDES    MORE    THAN    BELIEF.  45 

of  the  common  people — and  that  they  did  not  use  these 
terms  in  any  contrary  sense,  but  in  the  same  sense  as  they 
were  used  in  the  common  affairs  of  life.  If  they  had  used 
them  in  a  sense  peculiar  to  themselves,  then  had  they  been 
unintelligible  to  their  hearers.  Then  had  the  Jews  been 
furnished  with  a  sufficient  answer  to  our  Lord's  reprehen- 
sive  question,  Why  do  ye  not  understand  my  speech'?  lea, 
then  must  it  have  been  a  miracle  for  him  or  his  apostles 
ever  to  be  understood,  or  their  writings,  in  any  future  ages. 
To  apply  this  observation  to  the  point  in  hand  :  It  is  well 
known  that  faith,  in  common  speech,  signifies  the  same  as 
credence  ;  a  credit  of  some  report,  declaration  or  testimony, 
where  intuitive  evidence  is  not  to  be  obtained.  Now,  if 
true  faith,  as  mentioned  so  frequently  in  the  Scriptures,  be  to 
be  understood  according  to  this  easy,  obvious  sense  of  the 
word,  then  the  inspired  writers  acted  in  character  ;  but  if 
they  included  a  meaning  in  the  terms  faith,  believe,  be- 
liever,  &c.  peculiar  to  themselves,  then  whence  does  it  ap- 
pear  that  they  spake  and  wrote  intelligibly  ?"  p.  28,  29. 

I  could  not  possibly  express  my  own  view  of  faith  with 
greater  accuracy  or  simplicity  than  Mr.  Fuller  has  done  in 
the  above  extract;  and  had  he  kept  consistently  to  his  own 
definition  of  it,  and  the  arguments  by  which  he  supports  it, 
there  would  have  been  no  difference  between  us  on  this  sub- 
ject. But,  notwithstanding  his  distinguishing  faith  from  the 
outgoings  of  the  soul  towards  Christ,  in  fleeing  to  him,  re- 
ceiving him,  resting  on,  and  trusting  in  him,  &c.  notwith- 
standing all  he  says  of  the  term  belief  being  so  plain,  ob- 
vious, intelligible,  and  easy  to  be  understood,  and  his 
repeated  acknowledgment  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  did 
not  use  it  in  any  peculiar  sense,  but  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  it  was  used  in  the  common  affairs  of  life  ;  yet  he 
says,  "  However,  to  avoid  obscurity,  I  shall  attempt  more 
fully  to  explain  the  terms,"  p.  10.  It  seems,  then,  that  the 
plain  definition  given  by  the  Holy  Ghost  himself,  viz.  the 


46  WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH 

BELIEF  OF  THE  TRUTH,  (than  which,  he  owns,  there  can- 
not be  a  better)  is,  after  all,  so  obscure,  that  it  needs  to  be 
explained  before  we  can  understand  the  terms  of  it. 

With  regard  to  the  term  belief,  he  explains  it  to  be  a 
cordial  reception  of  the  truth ;  and  if  by  this  he  means  no- 
thing more  than  belief,  it  is  far  from  being  so  plain  an  ex- 
pression, or  so  suited  to  convey  that  idea,  as  the  Scripture 
term  itself  which  directly  expresses  it.  Belief  is  a  term 
which  does  not  admit  of  a  logical  definition,  because  the 
act  of  the  mind  signified  by  it  is  perfectly  simple,  and  of 
its  own  kind ;  nor  does  it  need  to  be  defined,  or  even  ex. 
plained,  because  it  is  a  common  word,  and  well  under- 
stood. But  it  is  evident  that  by  a  cordial  reception  he  in- 
tends something  more  than  belief,  some  exercise  of  the 
will  and  afiections  respecting  the  truth ;  and  it  can  admit  of 
no  dispute,  that  all  who  really  believe  the  gospel  as  a  faith- 
ful or  true  saying,  must  also  perceive  it  to  be  a  good  say- 
ing, worthy  of  all  acceptation,  and  so  receive  it  cordially  : 
But  the  question  is,  Whether  is  this  cordiality  of  reception 
what  the  Scripture  means  by  the  term  belief,  or  the  imme- 
diate eflfect  of  it  ?  for  it  is  certain  that  it  is  neither  the  pro- 
per nor  common  meaning  of  that  term,  and  it  is  as  certain 
that  the  will  and  afiections  cannot  be  moved  by  any  truth 
till  it  is  first  perceived  and  believed.  For  this  cordial  re- 
ception he  produces  Philip's  words  to  the  enunch.  Acts 
viii.  37.  "  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou 
mayest,"  taking  it  for  granted  that  the  word  heart  there 
means  the  will  and  affections.  But  it  has  already  been 
shown,  that  in  Scripture  the  word  heart  is  sometimes  put  for 
the  intellectual,  sometimes  for  the  moral  powers  of  the  soul, 
and  at  other  times  for  both  ;  and  therefore  the  sense  can  on- 
ly be  determined  by  the  nature  of  the  exercises  ascribed  to 
it ;  so  that,  when  the  heart  is  said  to  choose,  incline,  love, 
desire,  &c.  we  are  certain  that  it  is  put  for  the  will  and  af- 
fections ;  but  when  it  is  said  to  perceive,  know,  understand, 


INCLUDES    MORE    THAN    BELIEF.  47 

reason,  consider,  &c.    then   it  must  signify  the   intellect ; 
and  this  must  also  be  meant  by  the  term  when  doubting  or 
believing  is  ascribed  to  it,  these  being  exercises  of  the  un- 
derstanding or  judgment,  in   relation  to  the  truth  or  false- 
hood of  things.     When  Joshua  said  to  the  children  of  Is- 
rael, "Ye  know  in  all  your  hearts,  and  in   all  your  souls, 
that  not  one  thing  hath  failed  of  all  the  good  things  which 
the  Lord  your  God  spake  concerning  you,"  Josh,  xxiii.  14, 
he  was  not  affirming  any  thing  respecting  their  will  and  af- 
fections, but  that  they  had  a  clear  experimental   proof  and 
full  conviction   of  God's  faithfulness   to  his  promise.     So 
Philip,  by  believing  with  all  the  heart,  means  just  a  sincere 
and  hearty  conviction  of  mind  as  to  the  truth  of  what  he 
had  declared   concerning  Jesus.     And  that  the  eunuch  so 
understood  him,  is   plain  from  his  reply,  "  I  believe  that  Je- 
sus Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  ;"  where  we  see  he  expresses 
the  truth  which  he  believed  by  a  proposition,*  which  would 
have   been   improper  had  he  meant  to  express   the  exercise 
of  his  will  and  affections  respecting  it ;  for  it  would   not 
be  language  to  say,  I  consent,  choose,  or   love  that  Jesus 
Christ  is   the   Son   of  God.     The  same  thing  may  be  ob- 
served of  the   expression  believing  in,  or  with  the   heart, 
Rom.  X.  9,  10,  where   it   relates  to  the  proposition,  "  That 
God  hath  raised  him  from  the   dead,"  and  is  distinguished 
from  confessing  with  the  mouth,  and  so  must  import  a  real 
inward  conviction  of  the  mind,  as  opposed  to  a  mere  verbal 
or  insincere  profession  of  belief.     It  must  always  be  kept 
in  view  that  there  is  no  dispute  about  the  immediate  effects 
of  faith  on  the  will  and  affections,  but  simply  about  the  na- 
ture of  faith  itself. 

The  other  term    in     the   Scripture  definition   is,   the 

♦  Belief  is  always  expressed  in  language  by  a  proposition  wherein 
something  is  affirmed  or  denied,  and  without  belief  there  could  be  nei- 
ther affirmation  or  denial,  nor  any  form  of  words  to  express  either. 
Dr.  Reid  on  the  Intellectual  Powers  of  Man.    Essay  ii.  p.  270. 


48  WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH 

TRUTH.  This  Mr.  Fuller  admits  to  be  the  Gospel,  p.  10  ; 
but  when  he  comes  afterwards  to  explain  that  truth,  he  ob- 
scures it  to  such  a  degree  that  I  can  scarcely  recognize  the 
apostolic  gospel  in  it.  He  first  specifies  some  gospel 
truths,  and  states  them  as  so  many  abstract  disconnected 
particulars,  keeping  out  of  view  their  coherence,  import,  or 
design,  such  as,  ''  that  there  was  such  a  person  as  Jesus 
Christ — that  he  was  born  at  Bethlehem — lived,  and  wrought 
miracles  in  Judea — was  crucified,  buried,  and  raised  again 
from  the  dead — that  he  ascended  to  glory,  and  will  judge 
the  world  at  the  last  day — that  he  is  God  and  man,  and 
bears  the  titles  of  king,  priest,  and  prophet  of  his  church — 
that  there  is  an  eternal  election,  a  particular  redemption,  an 
effectual  vocation,  a  final  perseverance,"  &c.  &c.  &c. 
Having  run  over  these  particulars,  and  left  us  to  guess  the 
rest  from  his  three  et  ceteras,  he  admits  "  that  these,  no 
doubt,  are  truths,  "and  great  truths  ;"  but  terms  them 
general  and  external  truths,  and  thinks  "  they  may  be  be- 
lieved where  no  saving  faith  is,"  p.  13. 

Now,  though  I  must  own  that  Mr.  Fuller's  list  of  detach- 
ed articles  is  far  from  giving  a  proper  view  of  what  the 
Scriptures  emphatically  call  the  truth  ;  yet  I  cannot  help  ob- 
serving, that  his  stating  them  in  such  alight  not  only  tends 
to  depreciate  the  particulars  mentioned,  but  also  that  great 
truth  with  which  they  stand  connected,  and  which  is  the  sub- 
ject and  scope  of  the  gospel  testimony  ;  and  thus  lead  his 
readers  to  conceive  that  the  belief  of  the  gospel  will  be  of 
little  service  to  them,  and  to  imagine  that  there  is  some 
other  truth  of  greater  importance,  which  demands  a  prefer- 
able regard.  The  grand  foundation  truth  which  the  gospel 
testifies  is,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  John  i. 
34.  chap.  XX.  31.  Acts  ix.  20,  22.  chap,  xviii.  5.  All  its 
supernatural  evidence  unites  in  attesting  this  great  truth,  and 
all  its  doctrines  are  founded  on,  and  derive  their  meaning, 
glory,  and  importance  from  it.     This  truth  includes  in  it  his 


INCLUDES    MORE    THAN    BELIEF.  49 

character  and  also  his  work,  as  the  Saviour  of  lost  siuners, 
as  that  he  died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures,  and 
that  he  was  buried,  and  that  he  rose  again  the  third  day  for 
our  justification,  Kom.  vi.  25.  1  Corin.  xv.  3,  4.  And 
whatever  Mr.  Fuller  may  say  about  what  he  calls  general  and 
external  truths,  which  may  be  believed  where  no  saving 
faith  is,  yet  the  word  of  God  expressly  assures  us,  that  those 
who  believe  this  truth  are  blessed,  Mat.  xvi.  17,  have  life 
through  Christ's  name,  John  xx.  31,  have  righteousness 
imputed  to  them,  Rom.  iv.  24,  are  born  of  God,  and  over- 
come the  world,  1  John  v.  1,  6,  and  shall  be  saved,  Rom. 
X.  9,  1  Cor.  XV.  2  ;  so  that  the  belief  of  this  truth  is  saving 
faith.  This  is  that  truth  which  Paul  terms  "  a  faithful  say- 
ing, and  worthy  of  all  acceptation,  viz.  that  Christ  Jesus 
came  into  the  world  to  save  sinners,"  and  of  such  the  chief^ 
1  Tim.  i.  15.  This  is  the  apostolic  testimony  which  the 
Thessalonians  believed,  2  Thess.  i.  10,  and  whose  faith  is 
therefore  described  to  be  a  belief  of  the  truth,  chap.  ii.  13. 

But  it  is  evident  that  Mr.  Fuller  does  not  consider  this 
as  the  main  thing  intended  by  the  term,  for  he  explains  it 
thus  :  "  By  truth  I  mean  (and  I  think  the  apostle  means  the 
same)  to  include  with  the  fore-mentioned  doctrines  their 
qualities  or  properties,  which  make  a  great,  and  even  an  es- 
sential part  of  their  truth,"  p.  13.  It  will  admit  of  no  doubt, 
that  to  believe  the  gospel  is  to  believe  (so  far  as  we  are  en- 
lightened) whatever  it  testifies,  both  relating  to  doctrines 
and  their  qualities.  The  doctrines  themselves  exhibit  the 
qualities  of  what  they  reveal,  and  it  appears  to  me  a  con- 
tradiction to  suppose  that  a  person  may  really  understand 
-'nd  believe  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel  without  some  percep- 
tion of  their  importance  and  excellence,  though  the  great- 
est saint  upon  earth,  even  when  possessed  of  the  full  assur- 
ance of  faith,  perceives  the  excellence  of  the  truth  only  in 
part.  But  I  am  of  opinion  that  the  gospel  doctrines  are 
termed  the  truth,  not  on  account  of  their  qualities  as  good 

& 


50  WHETHER   JUSTIFYING    FAITH 

or  bad,  nor  only  as  exhibiting  the  substance  of  the  legal  sha- 
dows ;  but  chiefly  because  they  are  true  as  opposed  to  all 
falsehood  or  deceit,  2  Pet.  i.  16.  1  John,  ii.  21,  22,27.  The 
agreement  of  the  gospel  testimony  with  the  reality  of  what 
it  testifies,  is  its  truth  or  veracity ;  and  as  it  reveals  the  most 
important  of  all  truths,  and  upon  the  highest  authority,  it 
being  the  testimony  of  God,  who  cannot  lie,  so  it  is  by 
way  of  eminence  termed  The  Truth.  Now,  though  a  belief 
of  this  testimony  includes  a  belief  of  the  qualities  or  pro- 
perties of  what  is  testified,  yet  it  is  as  truths  or  realities 
that  they  are  the  objects  of  faith ;  and  till  they  thus  exist 
as  truths  in  the  mind,  they  can  have  no  influence  on  the 
will  and  affections. 

But  let  us  see  what  those  truths  or  qualities  are  which 
Mr.  Fuller  thinks  are  more  especially  the  objects  of  saving 
faith.  He  specifies  the  following,  viz.  "  The  infinite  ex- 
cellency of  God,  the  reasonableness  and  goodness  of  his 
law,  the  exceeding  sinfulness  of  sin  in  itself  considered, 
men's  vile,  dangerous,  and  lost  condition,  the  equity  of  God 
in  sending  them  to  hell,  the  infinite  loveliness  of  Christ, 
and  excellency  of  his  way  of  salvation,  the  beauty  of  holi- 
ness, &c.  &c. ;  these  are  truths  concerning  which  every 
wicked  man  is  an  infidel,"  p.  14,  15.  These  are,  indeed, 
very  important  truths,  and  without  some  suitable  conviction 
of  them  the  gospel  will  not  appear  in  its  proper  light,  nor  be 
duly  esteemed ;  yet,  excepting  two  general  expressions,  viz. 
the  loveliness  of  Christ  and  excellence  of  his  way  of  sal- 
vation, I  find  nothing  of  what  is  properly  called  the  gospel 
in  them.  These  particulars  may  be  learned  in  a  good 
measure  from  the  law,  without  any  knowledge  of  the  way 
of  salvation  ;  for  they  are  truths  altogether  independent  of 
the  gospel,  and  would  have  remained  the  same  immutable 
truths  though  Jesus  Christ  had  never  come  in  the  flesh. 
True,  indeed,  the  gospel  supposes  these  truths,  the  whole 
scheme  of  salvation  infers  them,  and  is  calculated  to  give 


INCLUDES   MORE    THAN    BELIEF.  51 

the  clearest  views  and  deepest  impressions  of  them,  and  al- 
so to  reconcile  the  mind  to  them ;  yet  I  do  not  find  that  our 
Lord  and  his  apostles,  in  preaching  the  gospel,  ever  dwell 
on  these  particulars  as  the  direct  and  main  subject  of  their 
testimony,  or  as  that  truth  which  they  called  upon  men  to  be- 
lieve unto  their  salvation.  Peter  declared  the  truth  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  Acts  ii.  and  also  to  Cornelius  and  his 
house,  chap.  x.  and  so  did  Paul  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  chap, 
xiii.  These  discourses  are  plain  and  simple,  and  in  per- 
fect unison  with  each  other ;  they  were  also  countenanced 
of  God,  and  attended  with  remarkable  effects  :  yet  in  none 
Jifthem  is  there  any  direct  or  explicit  mention  of  what  Mr. 
Fuller  chiefly  considers  as  The  Truth.  They  seem  wholly  to 
consist  of  what  he  terms  general  and  external  truths,  and 
which  he  says  may  be  believed  where  no  saving  faith  is. 
The  apostles  declared  the  testimony  of  God  concerning  his 
Son,  and  constantly  connected  salvation  with  the  belief  of 
it ;  but  Mr.  Fuller,  though  he  does  not  exclude  the  main 
subject  of  their  testimony,  yet  he  gives  it  such  epithets  as 
tend  to  depreciate  it,  while  he  transfers  salvation  from  it 
to  (he  belief  of  some  other  truths  or  qualities  which  he  con- 
siders as  more  peculiarly  the  objects  of  saving  faith. 

Hitherto  my  remarks  have  been  confined  to  the  first 
edition  of  his  book.  He  has  left  out  of  the  second  edition 
the  greater  part  of  that  description  of  faith  which  I  have 
extracted  from  the  first ;  yet  it  is  with  pleasure  I  observe, 
that  in  this  last  edition  his  account  of  faith  is  exceedingly 
plain,  simple,  and  scriptural.  He  says,  "That  the  belief 
of  the  truth  which  God  hath  recorded  in  the  Scriptures  con- 
cerning Christ,  is  saving  faith,  is  evident  from  the  follow- 
ing passages  ;"  for  which  he  cites  Mark  xvi.  16.  John  xx. 
31.  Luke  viii.  12.  Matt.  xvi.  17.  Rom.  x.  9.  1  John  v.  1, 
5.  John  iii.  33.  chap.  v.  33,  34.  2  Thess.  i.  10.  chap.  ii. 
13.  From  these  passages  he  observes,  that  a  belief  of  the 
gospel — of  the  word — of  the  gospel-testimony — a  belief  that 


52  WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH 

Jesus  is  the  Christ  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  &c.  must  be 
saving  faith,  because  salvation  is  connected  with  that  be- 
lief; and  he  is  so  certain  of  this,  that  he  further  says,  "If 
the  foregoing  passages  do  not  prove  the  point,  we  may  de- 
spair of  learning  any  thing  from  the  Scriptures."*  And  I 
may  add,  that  if  Mr.  Fuller  does  not  perfectly  agree  with 
me  on  this  head,  I  despair  of  learning  any  thing  from  his 
words,  for  no  words  can  more  clearly  express  my  view  of 
the  subject. 

In  his  Appendix  he  enters  upon  this  point,  by  professing 
his  agreement  with  me  :  "  I  have  the  pleasure  (says  he) 
to  agree  with  Mr.  M.  in  considering  the  belief  of  the  gos- 
pel to  be  saving  faith."!  ^^  ^^^^  were  really  the  case,  then 
the  controversy  would  be  at  an  end.  But  do  we  not  differ 
as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  belief?  No  :  we  agree, 
*'  that  the  inspired  writers  used  this  term  in  the  same  sense 
as  it  is  used  in  the  common  aifairs  of  life,  and  that  it  signi- 
fies the  same  as  credence  ;  a  credit  of  some  report,  decla- 
ration, or  testimony,  where  intuitive  evidence  is  not  to  be 
obtained."  And  do  we  agree  also  as  to  what  is  meant  by 
the  Gospel  1  Yes ;  we  agree  in  general,  "  that  it  is  the 
truth  which  God  hath  recorded  in  the  Scriptures  concerning 
Christ ;"  and  certainly  we  will  not  differ  about  the  excellent 
qualities  of  that  truth,  or  the  hearty  reception  it  must  meet 
with  from  all  who  really  believe  it.  We  cannot  therefore 
differ  on  this  subject,  while  both  of  us  abide  consistently  by 
what  we  have  expressly  agreed  to. 

Yet  Mr.  Fuller  will  not  abide  by  this,  but  strikes  out  a 
difference  in  these  words :  "  Our  disagreement  on  this  sub- 
ject is  confined  to  the  question,  "What  the  belief  of  the  Gos- 
pel includes  ?"!  But  how  is  it  possible  that  we  can  dis- 
agree on  this,  if  we  are  agreed  as  to  what  belief  itself  is? 
We  both  admit  that  it  is  credence :  a  credit  of  some  report, 

♦  Page  16,  17,  18.  t  Page  IGO.  t  Ibid. 


INCLUDES   MORE    THAN    BELIEF.  63 

declaration,  or  testimony ;  and  that  the  Scripture  does  not 
use  that  term  in  any  uncommon  sense.  We  not  only 
agree  in  the  sound  of  the  term  belief,  but  in  the  most  point- 
ed explanation  (though  it  needs  none)  of  its  meaning,  both 
by  synonymous  words,  and  by  distinguishing  it  from  every 
other  exercise  of  the  mind,  however  nearly  allied  to  it,  or 
inseparable  from  it.  How,  then,  can  we  possibly  disagree 
about  what  it  includes  ?  It  must  be  kept  in  view  that  the 
question  under  consideration  does  not  respect  the  antece- 
dents, concomitants,  or  effects  of  faith  ;  nor  can  Mr.  Ful- 
ler include  these  in  it,  without  departing  from  his  own 
pointed  definition  of  it,  and  falling  into  the  most  glaring 
inconsistency.  If,  therefore,  he  is  consistent  with  himself, 
the  question  must  respect  simply  what  the  nature  of  faith  it- 
self includes.  Now,  with  respect  to  this  he  says,*  "  I  con- 
sider faith  as  credence,  and  nothing  else."  And  if  it  is 
credence  or  belief,  and  nothing  else,  then  it  is  certain  that 
it  can  include  nothing  else  in  its  nature.  And  with  re- 
spect to  its  concomitants  and  effects,  which  are  out  of  the 
present  question,  I  do  not  know  that  we  differ  at  all. 

But,  notwithstanding  Mr.  Fuller^s  simple  and  scriptural 
definition  of  faith  or  belief ;  his  express  declaration,  that 
he  understands  the  term  belief  according  to  its  ordinary 
use  in  the  common  affairs  of  life ;  his  nicely  distinguish- 
ing it  from  all  those  exercises  of  the  soul  which  are  either 
its  concomitants  or  immediate  effects  ;  his  professing  to 
consider  it  as  credence,  and  nothing  else ;  and  his  train 
of  arguments  in  support  of  this  simple  view  of  it — I  say, 
notwithstanding  all  this,  it  is  evident  he  means  no  such 
thing ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  labors  in  his  Appendix  to 
prove  that  belief  is  something  else  than  credence !  He 
professes  to  have  the  pleasure  of  agreeing  with  me,  that  the 
belief  of  the  gospel  is  saving  faith.     WTiat  pleasure  he  cau 

♦  In  his  letter  to  me,  dated  Nov.  25,  1794; 
6* 


fi4  WHETHER   JUSTIFYING    FAITH 

have  in  this,  I  am  not  able  to  conceive,  since  he  endeavors 
to  show  that  it  is  only  an  agreement  in  the  sound,  but  not 
in  the  sense  of  that  proposition  ;  for  he  afiirms  that  we  dis- 
agree on  the  question,  What  the  belief  of  the  gospel  in- 
cludes ?  and  that  "  there  is  an  important  difference  in  the 
ideas  which  we  attach  to  believing."*  For  my  own  part,  I 
honestly  declare  that  I  attach  no  unusual  or  double  meaning 
to  that  word.  I  think  it  bears  but  one  simple  sense,  which 
needs  no  explanation,  because  every  body  understands  it ; 
nay,  I  attach  no  other  idea  to  the  word  believing,  than  what 
Mr.  Fuller  himself  must  necessarily  attach  to  it  if  he  really 
means  what  he  says,  viz.  that  he  understands  it  according 
to  its  ordinary  use  in  the  common  affairs  of  life,  to  be  a 
crediting  some  report,  declaration,  or  testimony,  or  to  be 
credence  and  nothing  else.  If,  therefore,  there  is  an  im- 
portant difference  between  this  and  the  idea  which  Mr.  Ful- 
ler  attaches  to  believing,  it  must  be  a  difference  in  his  real 
meaning  from  the  plain  sense  of  his  words,  which  belongs 
to  him  to  reconcile. 

When  I  take  into  view  what  he  advances  on  this  subject, 
I  think  Mr.  Scot's  definition  of  faith  would  have  suited  his 
purpose  better  than  his  own.  The  belief  of  the  truth,  he 
aays,  is  "a  cordial  consent  to  the  testimony  of  God  in  his 
holy  word  ;"  and  faith  in  Christ  in  particular  he  defines  "a 
cordial  consent  to  the  testimony  of  God  concerning  his 
Son."t  Had  Mr.  Fuller  fairly  retracted  his  own  definition, 
and  adopted  something  like  this,  it  would  have  been  more 
consistent  with  his  real  sentiments  ;  but  to  state  true  faith 
as  only  belief  or  credence,  and  then  endeavor  to  explain  it 
into  something  else,  appears  to  me  a  deviation  both  from 
simplicity  and  consistency. 

It  is  now  time  for  me  to  take  notice  of  his  animadver- 

♦  Pref.  p.  viii.  Note. 

t  The  warrant  and  nature  of  faith  in  Christ,  p.  8. 


INCLUDES   MORE    THAN    BELIEF.  65 

sions  on  what  I  have  advanced  on  this  subject  in  my  Trea- 
tise on  Christ's  Comniissionj  and  in  the  pamphlet  entitled, 
"The  Belief  of  the  Gospel  saving  Faith."  All  I  have  said, 
or  meant  to  say,  in  these  publications  on  the  nature  of  faith, 
centres  in  this  single  point,  viz.  That  justifying  faith  is 
simply  a  belief  of  the  gospel ;  and  therefore,  if  Mr.  Fuller's 
animadversions  are  in  point,  they  must  go  to  a  denial  of 
that  position.  But,  instead  of  attacking  this  directly,  h^ 
proceeds,  first,  to  misrepresent  my  sentiments,  and  then  to 
combat  his  own  misrepresentations. 

He  charges  me  with  denying  that  there  is  any  thing  holy 
in  the  nature  of  faith,  or  that  it  is  a  virtue  or  moral   excel- 
lence.*    But  if  the  reader  will  turn  to  the  note  he  refers  to, 
Commission,  p.  75,  76,  he  will  find  that  the  very  reverse  is 
the  truth.     Mr.  Fuller  in  his  letter  had  said,  that  "  if  faith 
was  a  mere  exercise  of  the  understanding,  it  would  contain 
no  virtue."      To  this  I  replied,  "  that  he  must  mean  a  be- 
lieving exercise  of  the  understanding ;    and  to  affirm  that 
this  contains  no  virtue,  when  it  has  God  or  his  word  for  its 
object,  is  rather  too  bold,  considering  how  highly  the  Scrip- 
ture speaks  of  it,  representing  it  as  the  root  or  principle  of 
all  Christian  virtues.  Gal.  v.  6.   1.  Tim.  i.  5,  as  that  which 
gives  glory  to  God,  Rom.  iv.  20,  and  without  which  it  is 
impossible  to  please  him,  Heb.  xi.  6.     Surely  it  is  right  to 
believe   all  that  God  says."     The  reader  may  now  judge 
which  of  us  deny  the  simple  belief  of  the  gospel  to  be  a 
virtue.     But,  notwithstanding  my  express  declaration,  with 
the  Scripture  grounds  of  it,  he  still  persists  in  his   accusa- 
tion.    And  why  ?     Merely  because  I  denied  that  the  prin- 
ciple upon  which  he  argued  will  hold  good  in  all  cases. 
Having  affirmed  that  "  if  faith  was  a  mere  exercise  of  the 
understanding,  it  would  contain  no  virtue,"  he  adds,  "and 
if  faith  contained  no  virtue,  unbelief  could  contain  no  sin." 

*  Page  164,  165. 


66  WHETHER  JUSTIFYING   FAITH 

My  answer  to  this  was,  "  That  though  we  should  grant  the 
unfounded  assertion  (viz.  of  Mr.  Fuller)  that  mere  belief 
contains  no  virtue,  it  would  not  follow  that  *  unbelief  con- 
tains no  sin ;'  for  such  an  argument  proceeds  upon  this 
principle,  that  if  there  is  no  virtue  in  a  thing,  there  can 
be  no  sin  in  its  opposite ;  but  this  does  not  hold  true  in  in- 
numerable instances."  I  instanced  an  abstaining  from 
many  crimes  which  might  be  mentioned  ;  taking  food  when 
hungry ;  believing  the  testimony  of  a  friend,  and  I  may  add, 
the  exercise  of  mere  natural  affection,  in  none  of  which 
is  there  any  real  moral  virtue ;  yet  the  opposite  of  them 
would  be  very  sinful  and  vicious.  And,  to  bring  the  matter 
to  the  point  in  hand,  and  show  the  inconclusiveness  of  Mr. 
Fuller's  reasoning,  I  made  the  "  supposition  that  there  was 
no  more  virtue  contained  in  believing  the  witness  of  God 
than  in  believing  the  witness  of  men,"  yet  even  in  that 
case  "  it  does  not  follow  that  there  would  be  no  sin  in  un- 
belief, which  is  to  make  God  a  liar,"  1  John  v.  10.  Now, 
it  is  this  supposition  which  Mr.  Fuller  says  "  must  be  allow- 
ed to  prove  that  Mr.  M.,  notwithstanding  what  he  has  said 
to  the  contrary,  does  not  consider  faith  as  containing 
any  virtue.*  But,  passing  this  impeachment  of  my  hon- 
esty, let  us  state  the  matter  shortly  :  Mr.  Fuller  asserts, 
*'  That  if  faith  were  a  mere  exercise  of  the  understanding, 
it  would  contain  no  virtue  ;  and  if  faith  contained  no  vir- 
tue, unbelief  could  contain  no  sin."  I,  on  the  other  hand, 
maintain.  That  a  believing  exercise  of  the  understanding 
(which  alone  can  be  properly  termed  faith),  when  it  has  God 
or  his  word  for  its  object,  does  contain  virtue;  but  that, 
even  supposing  Mr.  Fuller's  assertion  were  true  that  it  did 
not  contain  virtue,  yet  his  conclusion  would  not  follow,  viz. 
that  unbelief  could  contain  no  sin  ;  because  there  are  many 
things  (some  of  which  I  specified)  which  have  no  real  po- 

♦  Page  165. 


INCLUDES   MORE    THAN    BELIEF.  67 

sitive  virtue  or  holiness  in  them,  and  yet  their  opposites 
would  be  verv  sinful.  Now,  as  Mr.  Fuller  denies  that 
there  is  any  virtue  in  believing  God  with  the  understanding 
(the  only  faculty  with  which  we  can  believe  any  thing,)  he 
must,  according  to  the  principle  of  his  argument,  also  deny 
that  there  is  any  sin  in  disbelieving  God  with  the  under- 
standing, or  in  holding  him  in  our  judgment  as  a  liar.  He 
cannot  possibly  avoid  this  shocking  conclusion  without  giv- 
ing up  the  general  principle  upon  which  his  argument  hin- 
ges, viz.  That  if  there  is  no  virtue  iu  a  thing,  there  can  be 
no  sin  in  its  opposite. 

He  attempts,  however,  to  support  this  principle  by  run- 
ning to  the  opposite  extreme,  and  af&rms  that  the  instances 
I  mention  as  containing  no  virtue,  such  as  taking  food 
when  hungry,  believing  the  testimony  of  a  friend  when  we 
have  every  reason  to  do  so,  the  exercise  of  natural  affection, 
&c.  are  all  virtuous  and  holy  exercises.*  But  if  they  are, 
and  if,  as  he  affirms,  "  even  our  believing  the  testimony  of 
a  friend  when  we  have  every  reason  to  do  so,  be  a  virtuous 
and  holy  exercise,"  how  comes  it  that  the  exercise  of  our 
understanding  in  believing  the  testimony  of  God  contains 
no  virtue  ?  Is  this  the  only  exercise  which  admits  of  no 
holiness  in  it,  nor  of  sin  in  its  opposite?  I  hope  Mr.  Ful- 
ler will  rather  give  up  his  argument  than  stand  to  this  plain 
consequence  of  it. 

But  wherein  consists  that  holiness  which  he  ascribes  to 
common  eating,  believing  the  testimony  of  a  friend,  the 
exercise  of  natural  affection,  &c.  ?  Not,  surely,  in  these  na- 
tural exercises  themselves  ;  for  then  wicked  men,  and,  in 
some  of  them,  even  brute  animals  would  exercise  holiness. 
It  must  therefore  lie  in  something  else,  and  he  very  proper- 
ly places^  it  in  the  aim  of  the  moral  agent,  or  his  doing 
these  things  with  an  eye  to  the  glory  of  God ;  while  he  owns 

♦  Page  1G7,  1G8. 


68  WHETHER   JUSTIFYING   FAITH 

*<  That  there  may,  indeed,  be  no  holiness  in  these  things  as 
performed  by  apostate  creatures."*  Now,  as  holiness  lies 
not  in  these  exercises  themselves,  but  in  the  pious  aim  of 
the  agent ;  and  as  they  are  not  universally,  nor  for  the  most 
part,  performed  with  a  holy  aim  ;  so  they  sufficiently  show 
that  the  general  principle  of  Mr.  Fuller's  argument  does 
not  hold  good  in  innumerable  instances,  and  that  I  was  ful- 
ly warranted  to  adduce  some  of  these  instances  as  contain- 
ing no  moral  virtue,  though  their  opposites  are  very  sinful. 
But  Mr.  Fuller  is  very  tenacious  of  his  argument,  and 
therefore  bluntly  replies,  "  This,  I  am  persuaded,  is  not 
true."  And  how  does  he  prove  it  to  be  false '?  Why,  by 
this  argument,  "  If  they  were  performed  as  God  requires 
them  to  be  (and  as  they  should  be  in  order  to  their  being 
the  proper  opposites  to  the  sins  referred  to),  they  would  be 
holy  exercises. "f  That  is.  If  they  were  what,  in  fact,  they 
generally  are  not,  then  they  would  be  holy  exercises  !  Mr. 
Fuller  should  recollect  that  the  question  here  does  not  re- 
spect a  matter  of  right,  or  what  things  ought  to  be,  but  a 
matter  of  fact,  or  what  they  actually  are,  and  what  he  him- 
self allows  them  to  be  as  they  are  performed  by  apostate 
creatures. 

But  to  return  to  the  point ;  Mr.  Fuller,  as  was  observed, 
affirms,  "  That  if  faith  were  a  mere  exercise  of  the  under- 
standing, it  would  contain  no  virtue."  The  expression, 
**  a  mere  exercise  of  the  understanding,"  does  not  convey 
to  me  any  distinct  idea  of  faith.  The  understanding  may 
be  exercised  in  a  variety  of  ways  without  belief.  We  may 
have  a  clear  and  speculative  conception  of  many  things 
which  we  do  not  consider  as  real  or  true.  There  is  a  wide 
difference  between  understanding  the  sense  of  a  proposition, 
and  believing  the  truth  of  it.  Belief  is  a  particular  kind  of 
©xercise  of  the  understanding,  whereby  it  perceives  and 

♦Page  167.  t  Ibid. 


INCLUDES    MORE    THAN    BELIEF.  69 

realizes  the  truth  of  thiugs  testified  or  promised  upon  proper 
evidence. 

Though  the  act  of  the  mind  which  is  termed  belief  must 
necessarily  be  of  the  same  general  nature  in  all  cases,  and 
though  true  faith  is  nothing  more  than  belief;  yet  belief  in 
all  cases,  and  indeed  in  most  cases,  does  not  contain  vir- 
tue. The  following  distinctions  may  serve  to  explain  this 
a  little. — 1.  When  belief  is  the  effect  of  mere  natural  causes, 
there  is  no  positive  holiness  in  it ;  but  when  produced  by 
the  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  word  of  God,  it 
must  be  holy,  for  the  nature  of  the  effect  must  correspond 
with  its  cause  ;  and  Mr.  Fuller  admits,  "  that  the  special 
influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  not  required  for  that  which 
has  no  holiness  in  it  ;"*  and  "that  whatever  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  a sanctifier  produces,  must  resemble  his  own  nature."! — 
2.  When  belief  is  not  grounded  upon  proper  evidence,  but 
is  chiefly  influenced  by  the  will,  inclination,  or  disposition  to 
believe,  it  is  not  so  properly  termed  belief  as  credulity,  and  does 
not  contain  virtue  ;  for  the  will  has  no  more  right  to  super- 
sede or  supply  the  place  of  evidence,  than  it  has  to  reject 
the  clearest  proofs  ;  and  Mr.  Fuller  acknowledges  that  "  no- 
thing deserves  the  name  of  faith  but  what  is  supported  by 
evidence."  First  edit.  p.  26.  That  belief  also  which  is 
grounded  merely  on  the  evidence  of  sense,  experience,  or 
human  testimony,  is  not  divine  faith,  or  peculiar  to  real 
Christians,  but  is  merely  natural  and  common  to  mankind. 
But  when  belief  is  grounded  on  proper  evidence  that  God 
is  the  author  of  revelation,  and  credits  that  revelation  be- 
cause it  is  the  word  of  him  who  cannot  lie,  but  will  make 
good  all  he  hath  said,  however  far  transcending  the  ordinary 
course  of  things ;  such  a  belief  must  be  holy,  for  it  is  ground- 
ed on  just  views  of  the  character  of  God,  and  gives  him  the 
glory  of  his   power   and  faithfulness,   Rom.   iv.  20. — 3. 

♦  Pagje  128.  t  Page  171. 


60  WHETHER   JUSTIFYING    FAITH 

When  the  objects  of  belief  are  only  natural  things,  or  the 
common  affairs  of  this  world,  it  has  nothing  spiritual  in  it ; 
but  when  it  respects  God,  and  the  supernatural  truths  of  his 
word,  it  must  be  a  spiritual  belief.  Mr.  Fuller  also  admits, 
that,  "  though  believing,  simply  considered,  is  a  mere  na- 
tural act,  yet  believing  such  things  as  the  gospel  reveals 
must  be  a  spiritual  act."  First  edit.  p.  25,  26. — 4.  With 
regard  to  its  influence  an(i  effects,  as  belief  in  general  is 
the  main  spring  in  the  life  of  man,  without  -which  he 
could  have  no  rational  motive  or  end  in  his  volitions,  af- 
fections, or  actions  ;  so  the  belief  of  divine  revelation,  and 
partic\ilarly  of  the  gospel,  on  the  authority  of  God,  is  re- 
presented in  Scripture  as  the  main  spring  in  the  life  of  a 
Christian,  or  as  the  root  or  principle  of  all  Christian  vir- 
tues.  Acts  XV.  9.  Gal.  v.  6.  Tim.  i.  5.  Heb.  xi.  1. 
John  v.  4,  6.  Hence  it  is  that  the  same  moral  influence 
and  effects  upon  the  will,  affections,  and  life  which  are  as. 
cribed  to  the  word  and  Spirit  of  God,  are  also  ascribed  to 
faith.  Now,  Mr.  Fuller  admits,  that  "  if  faith  is  the  root  of 
holiness,  it  must  be  holy  itself;  for  the  nature  of  the  fruit 
corresponds  with  that  of  the  root."*  Thus  it  appears  that 
the  quality  of  belief  depends  much  on  the  nature  of  its  pro- 
ductive cause,  grounds,  objects,  and  effects.  When  these  are 
not  holy  and  spiritual,  neither  is  belief;  but  when  they  are,  be- 
lief must  be  also  holy  and  spiritual  ;  and  with  this  Mr.  Fuller 
seems  to  agree  in  every  particular.  I  shall  only  add, — 6. 
That  as  without  faith,  it  is  impossible  to  please  God,  Heb. 
xi.  6. — as  faith  is  highly  commended  in  Scripture,  Mat.  xv. 
28.  Rom.  iv.  18 — 23.  Heb.  xi. — and  as  it  has  the  promise 
of  spiritual  blessings  (Mark  xvi.  16.  John  iii.  15,  36.  Acts 
X.  43.  ch.  xiii.  39.  ch.  xvi.  31.  Rom.  x.  9.)  it  must  be 
spiritual  and  holy,  or  rather  the  radical  principle  of  all 
spirituality  and  holiness.     And  here  I   adopt  Mr.   Fuller's 

♦  Page  166. 


INCLUDES    MORE    THAN    BELIEF.  61 

criterion  of  spirituality,  viz  :  that  "  whatever  has  the 
promiseof  spiritual  blessings,  that  is  considered  as  a  spirit- 
ual exercise."* 

The  reader  will  now  perceive  with  what  justice  Mr.  Ful- 
ler represents  me  as  denying  that  faith  contains  any  virtue, 
and  as  laboring  to  establish  that  principle.  It  was  certainly 
very  unfair  in  him  to  catch  at  a  mere  supposition,  which  I 
made  for  argument's  sake,  and  to  state  it  as  my  real  senti- 
ment, though  he  saw  that  I  expressly  opposed  that  sentiment. 
Nor  was  it  fair  in  him  to  alter  my  introductory  words,  viz. 
"But  though  we  should  grant  the  unfounded  assertion,  that 
mere  belief  contains  no  virtue,"  &c.  and  to  substitute  the 
following,  "If  mere  belief  contains  no  virtue,"  &c.f  as  if 
I  had  really  admitted  that  it  did  not.  But,  whatever  holiness 
may  be  ascribed  to  faith,  still  I  maintain  that  it  is  credence 
or  belief,  and  nothing  else  ;  and,  with  respect  to  the  effica- 
cy ascribed  to  it  in  justification,  that  must  be  laid  to  the  ac- 
count of  its  object ;  its  own  intrinsic  power,  virtue,  or  holi. 
ness,  being  out  of  the  question. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  Mr.  Fuller,  very  inconsis- 
tently, both  admits  and  denies  "  that  faith  is  credence,  and 
nothing  else  ;"  and  that  not  merely  in  some  inadvertent  and 
occasional  expressions,  but  in  a  train  of  reasoning  on  both 
sides  of  the  question.  But  the  whole  scope  of  his  Appen- 
dix goes  to  deny  that  faith  (be  its  cause,  grounds,  objects, 
or  effects  what  they  may)  can  be  a  holy  principle,  unless  it 
arise  from  a  previous  moral  state  of  the  heart,  and  be  pro- 
duced by  an  act  of  the  will.  But  though  the  gospel  is  of 
such  a  salutary  and  interesting  nature,  that  no  man  can  be 
believing  it  if  his  will  continues  either  averse  or  indiffer- 
ent to  it,  yet  belief  is  not  an  act  of  the  will ;  for,  could  we 
suppose  a  man  ever  so  much  inclined  to  work  himself  up 
into  a  persuasion  of  its  truth,  yet  he  cannot  give  real  credit 

♦  Page  74.  t  Page  164. 


62  WHETHER   JUSTIFYING   FAITH 

to  it  till  he  perceive  it  to  be  the  testimony  of  God.  If  he 
could,  what  is  the  use  of  all  that  accumulated  divine  evidence 
which  attended  and  confirmed  it  at  its  first  publication  1 
Was  it  not  written  and  recorded  for  this  express  purpose, 
"that  men  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  the  Son  of 
God,  and  that  believing  they  might  have  life  through  his 
name  1"  John  xx.  31.  It  is  this  evidence  which  makes  the 
command  to  believe  reasonable,  and  which  leaves  those 
who  believe  not  altogether  without  excuse,  John  xv.  22,  24. 
But  1  shall  attend  a  little  to  the  manner  of  his  reasoning  on 
this  subject. 

His  main  arguments  seem  to  be  grounded  on  the  follow- 
ing principle,  viz  :  ''  I  scarcely  can  conceive  of  a  truth  more 
self-evident  than  this,  That  God's  commands  extend  only 
to  that  which  comes  under  the  iufluence  of  the  will."* 

But  the  principle  here  laid  down,  is  so  far  from  being 
self-evident,  that  to  me  it  does  not  appear  evident  at  all. 
That  the  commands  of  God  extend  both  to  the  will,  and  to 
that  which  comes  under  its  influence,  I  freely  admit ;  but 
that  they  extend  only  to  these,  I  deny  ;  for  it  is  evident, 
particularly  in  the  present  case,  that  they  extend  also  to  the 
belief  of  the  revealed  truths  and  motives  by  which  the  will 
itself  is  influenced.  None  of  his  commands  whatever  ex- 
tend to  blind  volitions,  enjoining  consent  to,  or  acquies- 
cence in  any  thing  which  is  supposed  to  be  neither  perceived 
nor  believed  in  the  judgment ;  nor  could  any  actings  of  the 
will  in  such  a  case,  supposing  them  to  exist,  be  of  a  holy 
nature,  or  acceptable  to  God.  The  first  and  great  com- 
mandment of  the  law  is,  to  love  the  Lord  our  God  with  all 
our  heart,  which  certainly  respects  the  exercise  of  the  will 
and  affections,  and  that  obedience  which  comes  under  their 
influence  ;  but  it  is  equally  evident  that  this  presupposes  a 
belief  "that  God  is  ;"  that  he  is  holy,  just,  and  good ;  "  and 

*  Page  163. 


INCLUDES    MORE    THAN    BELIEF.  63 

that  he  is  a  rewarder  of  them  that  diligently  seek  him." 
Without  this  belief,  or  previous  to  it,  there  cannot,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  be  any  holy  exercise  of  the  will  and  affec- 
tions towards  God,  nor  any  acceptable  obedience  to  him, 
Heb.  xi.  6.  Every  command  of  God,  therefore,  extends 
not  only  to  the  will,  and  what  falls  under  its  influence,  but 
also  to  the  belief  of  the  motives  he  sets  before  us,  to  influ- 
ence the  will  itself.  And  I  cannot  conceive  of  a  truth 
more  self-evident  than  this,  that  every  holy  motion  of  the 
will  and  affections  towards  God,  always  presupposes  the 
mind's  perception  and  belief  of  some  manifestation  which 
God  hath  made  of  himself. 

The  gospel  exhibits  the  most  glorious  manifestation  of 
the  character  of  God,  and  of  his  good-will  to  guilty  men  ; 
but  as  that  can  have  no  influence  on  the  will  and  affections 
till  it  is  perceived  and  believed,  so  belief  is  the  first  and 
great  commandment  which  accompanies  the  declaration  of 
the  gospel.  Now,  a  command  to  believe,  supposes  some- 
thing spoken  or  revealed  by  God,  and  proposed  as  the  mat- 
ter or  object  of  belief.  Without  this,  belief  would  be  an 
absolute  impossibility,  and  so  not  a  duty.  A  command  to 
believe  also  supposes  sufficient  evidence  aflTorded,  that 
what  is  declared  or  testified  is  a  revelation  from  God,  and 
therefore  true.  Without  this,  belief  would  be  credulity,  a 
weakness  of  mind  which  exposes  to  all  manner  of  imposi- 
tion  and  deception,  and  cannot  be  commanded  of  God. 
But  as  God  has  sufficiently  manifested  himself  to  be  the  Au- 
thor of  revelation,  so  the  command  to  believe  that,  is  a  com- 
mand to  believe  his  own  word,  with  whom  it  is  impossible 
to  lie.  In  this  case  unbelief  is  not  merely  the  effect  of  ig- 
norance, but  of  aversion  of  heart  to  the  truth  ;  and  so  unbe- 
lievers are  represented  not  only  as  blind,  but  as  hating  the 
light,  and  closing  their  eyes  lest  they  should  see  it,  John 
iii.  19,  20.  Acts  xxviii.  27.  It  is  a  treating  of  God  him- 
self as  a  liar,  and  so  a  sin  of  the  first  magnitude.     But  it 


64  WHETHER    JUSTIFVING    FAITH 

does  not  follow  from  this  that  faith  must  be  influenced  by 
a  previous  moral  state  of  the  heart,  or  produced  by  the  active 
exercise  of  the  will,  any  more  than  it  follows  that  its  merit 
must  be  equal  to  the  demerit  of  unbelief.  Though,  in  be- 
lieving, the  will  does  not  resist  light  and  evidence,  but  gives 
place  to  it ;  and  though  when  the  truth  is  believed,  it  hearti- 
ly acquiesces  in  it,  yet  belief  itself  is  not  produced  by  the 
will,  but  by  the  word  and  Spirit  of  God  enlightening  the 
mind,  to  perceive  the  truth  and  its  evidence.  It  is  of  his 
own  will,  not  ours,  that  God  begets  us  to  the  faith  with  the 
word  of  truth,  James  i.  18.  Every  thing  that  is  holy  in  the 
state  of  the  heart,  or  exercise  of  the  will  and  affections,  is 
the  effect  of  the  truth  believed  ;  for  faith  purifies  the  heart, 
and  worketh  by  love,  but  is  itself  the  gift  of  God. 
,  In  support  of  the  above  principle,  he  says,  "  Knowledge 
can  be  no  further  a  duty,  nor  ignorance  a  sin,  than  as  each 
is  influenced  by  the  moral  state  of  the  heart ;  and  the  same 
is  true  of  faith  and  unbelief."* 

But  if  faith  "  be  no  further  a  duty,  but  as  influenced  by 
the  moral  state  of  the  heart,"  then  it  can  be  no  man's  duty 
to  believe  the  testimony  of  God  concerning  his  Son,  till  he 
is  previously  possessed  of  that  moral  state.  Till  then,  nei- 
ther  the  revelation  of  God's  testimony  with  its  evidence,  his 
faithfulness  in  that  testimony,  nor  his  command  to  believe 
it,  can,  according  to  this,  constitute  faith  a  duty,  nor  unbe- 
lief a  sin  !  So  that  the  obligation  which  makes  it  a  duty  to 
believe  God,  must  be  founded  entirely  on  some  previous 
good  disposition  wrought  within  us,  and  not  in  any  objec- 
tive revelation,  or  command  of  God  in  his  word.  Again, 
if  faith  is  not  a  duty,  unless  it  arises  from  a  previous  moral 
state  of  the  heart,  then  no  man  who  adopts  this  opinion 
will  find  himself  warranted  to  believe,  till  he  knows  that  the 
state  of  his  heart  is  changed.     This  must  be  its  unavoid- 


*  Page  163. 


INCLUDES    MORE    THAN    BELIEF.  65 

able  effect,  so  far  as  it  operates ;  and,  in  my  opinion,  a  very 
pernicious  one.     To  say  that  he  "  cannot  possibly  be  con- 
scious of  this  change   till  he  has  believed,"*  is  no  answer 
at  all  to  this.     It  is  only  saying,  that  in  his  first  believing, 
he  cannot  possibly  avoid  presumption.     Further,  to  assert 
that  faith  cannot  be  genuine,  and  so  a  duty,  unless  it  arise 
from  a  previous  moral   state  of  the  heart,  is  to  take  for 
granted  the  very  point  at  issue,  though  the  regular  exercise 
of  our  faculties,  the  Scripture  instances  of  conversion,  the 
nature  of  the  means  to  which  that  change  is  ascribed,  &c. 
all  militate  against  that  assertion.     It  is  contrary  to  the  re- 
gular  exercise  of  our  faculties   that  the   state  of  the  heart 
should  be  changed  previous  to  any  illumination  of  the  mind, 
or  while  the  soul  is  in  a  state  of  total  ignorance  and  unbe- 
lief.    It  does  not  agree  with  the  Scripture  instances  of  con- 
version ;  for  in  none  of  them  do  we  read  of  any  real  change 
in  the  state  of  the  heart  previous  to  their  hearing  the  word 
and  its  influence,  though  some  might  be  less  prejudiced  and 
more  candid  than  others.     Nor  does  it   comport  with  the 
nature  of  the   means  with  which  the  Spirit  concurs  in  pro- 
ducing that  change,  and  to  which  it  is  always  ascribed,  viz. 
the  word   of  God  ;  for  it  is  obvious,  that  if  the  word  is  the 
means,  it  can  have   no  influence  in  changing  the  state  of 
the  heart  any  farther  than  it  is  understood  and  believed. 

He  thinks,  "  We  might  as  well  make  a  passive  admission 
of  light  into  the  eye,  or  of  sound  into  the  ear,  duties,  as  a 
passive  admission  of  truth  into  the  mind."| 

But  I  see  no  reason  why  believing  should  be  considered 
as  a  mere  passive  admission  of  truth  into  the  mind.  The 
truths  of  revelation  are  not  like  surrounding  material  objects 
which  obtrude  and  act  upon  our  bodily  senses.  They 
respect  things  spiritual  and  invisible,  and  are  brought  to  the 
view  of  our   minds  merely  by  means  of  testimony,  and 

♦  Page  163.  t  Ibid. 


66  WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH 

therefore  our  belief  of  that  testimony  requires  the  mind's 
attention  to,  and  consideration  of  its  import  and  evidence. 
The  gospel  report,  indeed,  comes  to  us  unsolicited,  and  faith 
comes  by  hearing  that  report,  and  by  the  divine  influence 
which  accompanies  it ;  yet  believing  itself  is  the  proper 
exercise  of  our  own  minds,  and  we  are  no  otherwise  passive 
in  believing  the  testimony  of  God  than  we  are  in  believing 
the  testimony  of  men  to  which  it  is  compared.  But,  with 
regard  to  that  previous  moral  state  of  the  heart  which,  in 
Mr.  Fuller's  opinion,  makes  faith  a  duty,  it  is  a  thing  where- 
in the  mind  is  perfectly  passive  ;  for,  according  to  him,  it 
is  produced  immediately  by  the  Spirit  operating  upon  the 
will  without  the  word,  or  any  truth  communicated  to  the 
judgment,  and  in  which  the  soul  is  not  only  passive,  but  of 
which  it  is  altogether  unconscious  :*  yet  from  this  passive 
and  unconscious  moral  state  of  the  heart,  he  supposes  the 
duty  and  activity  of  faith  to  arise  ;  and  this  faith  he  de- 
scribes to  be  a  receiving  the  truth  into  the  heart,  or  a  volun- 
tary acquiescence  in  it.  But  it  is  obvious  to  the  common 
sense  of  mankind,  that  no  truth  can  be  acquiesced  in  by  the 
will,  or  received  into  the  affections,  till  it  is  first  perceived 
and  believed.  And  this  self-evident  truth  interferes  with 
all  Mr.  Fuller's  arguments  on  this  head. 

In  the  foregoing  part  of  his  book  he  asserts,  "That  if 
faith  were  wholly  an  intellectual  and  not  a  moral  exercise, 
nothing  more  than  rationality,  or  a  capacity  of  understand- 
ing the  nature  of  evidence,  would  be  necessary  to  it.  In 
this  case  it  would  not  be  a  duty,  nor  would  unbelief  be  a 
sin,  but  a  mere  mistake  of  the  judgment.  IN  or  could 
there  be  any  need  of  divine  influence  ;  for  the  special  influ- 
ences of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  not  required  for  the  production 
of  that  which  has  no  holiness  in  it.''^ 

Here  he  plainly  denies  that  it  is  a  duty  to  believe  the  di- 

♦  Page  135.  t  Page  128. 


INCLUDES  MORE  THAN  BELIEF.  6T 

vine  testimony  merely  with  the  intellect,  or  that  power  of 
the  mind  termed  the  understanding,  though  it  is  by  that  alone 
we  can  perceive  its  import  and  evidence,  and  assent  to  its 
truth.  Had  he  only  denied  that  there  can  be  any  real  be- 
lief of  the  gospel  when  it  does  not  influence  the  will  and 
affections,  I  should  most  heartily  subscribe  to  it ;  but  to  de- 
ny that  a  belief  of  the  gospel  with  the  understanding  is  itself 
a  duty,  is  to  deny  that  we  are  under  any  obligation  to  be- 
lieve God  ;  nay,  it  is  in  effect  to  deny  that  it  is  our  duty  to 
acquiesce  in,  or  love  the  truth  ;  for  that  depends  entirely  on 
a  previous  perception  and  belief  of  it,  and  can  have  no  ex- 
istence without  this. 

He  not  only  denies  that  believing  God  with  the  under- 
standing is  a  duty,  but  adds,  "  nor  in  this  case  would  unbe- 
lief be  a  sin,  but  a  mere  mistake  of  the  judgment."  But 
this  can  only  be  true  upon  one  or  both  of  the  following  sup- 
positions. Either  that  God  has  not  given  a  clear  revelation 
of  the  truth,  and  supported  it  with  sufficient  evidence  ;  or, 
if  he  has.  That  there  is  no  moral  turpitude  in  mental  er- 
ror. But  both  these  suppositions  are  absolutely  false;  and 
therefore  unbelief  in  those  who  have  access  to  hear  the  gos- 
pel, is  not  a  mere  mistake  of  the  judgment,  but  a  most 
heinous  sin,  and  in  this  case  altogether  without  excuse,  as 
our  Lord  expressly  declares,  Johiivxv.  22,  25  ;  so  that,  though 
faith  is  not  the  exercise  of  the  will,  but  of  a  spiritually  en- 
lightened judgment  whereby  the  will  is  moved;  yet  unbe- 
lief arises  not  merely  from  ignorance,  but  also  from  the 
aversion  of  the  will  whereby  the  judgment  is  blinded,  and 
most  unreasonably  prejudiced  against  the  truth. 

He  affirms,  that  "aversion  ol"  heart  is  the  only  obstruc- 
tion to  faith  ;  that  the  removal  of  that  aversion  is  the  kind 
of  influence  necessary  to  produce  it — that  the  mere  force  of 
evidence,  however  clear,  will  not  change  the  disposition  of 
the  heart,"  and  that  "  in  this  case  therefore,  and  this  only,  it 


68  WHETHER   JUSTIFYING    FAITH 

requires  the  exceeding  greatness  of  divine  power  to  enable  a 
sinner  to  believe."*  Now,  g^  he  restricts  the  influences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  entirely  to  the  will,  and  speaks  so  diminutively 
of  the  understanding,  denying  that  its  exercise  in  believing 
the  gospel  is  a  duty,  or  of  a  holy  nature,  so  as  to  require  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  produce  it ;  I  think  it  plainly  ap- 
pears from  all  this,  that  he  does  not  consider  the  understanding 
as  the  subject  of  any  part  of  regeneration,  or  as  capable  of 
it;  or  if  he  does,  he  must  consider  it  as  changed  into  some- 
thing else  than  the  understanding,  something  more  than 
rationality,  or  a  capacity  of  understanding  the  nature  of 
evidence,"  and  its  exercise  into  something  else  than  a 
perception  and  belief  of  the  truth. 

But  the  word  of  God  speaks  very  differently  on  this  head. 
It  represents  the  darkness,  blindness,  and  ignorance  of  the 
mind,  with  regard  to  spiritual  things,  as  the  source  of  men's 
alienation  from  the  life  of  God,  and  of  their  rebellion  against 
him,  Eph.  iv.  18,  19,  as  that  by  which  Satan  reigns  in  and 
maintains  his  power  over  the  minds  of  men.  Acts  xxvi. 
18,  Eph.  vi.  12,  Col.  i.  13,  and  under  which  he  endeavors 
still  to  keep  them,  notwithstanding  the  publication  of  the 
gospel,  by  blinding  their  minds  lest  the  light  of  it  should 
shine  into  them,  2  Cor.  iv.  3,  4.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
regeneration  and  conversion  of  sinners  is  represented  as 
effected  by  means  of  light  communicated  to  the  understand- 
ing. It  is  described  as  the  opening  of  their  eyes  by  means 
of  the  gospel,  turning  them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  so 
from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God,  Acts  xxvi.  18,  as  a  de- 
livering them  from  the  power  of  darkness,  and  translating 
them  into  the  kingdom  of  God's  dear  Son,  Col.  i.  13.  The 
new  man  is  said  to  be  renewed  in  knowledge,  chap.  iii.  10, 
and  the  spiritual  man  to  discern  the  things  of  the  Spirit  as 
revealed  in  the  gospel,  1  Cor.  ii.  15,  and  hence  it  is  term- 

*  Page  128. 


INCLUDES    MORE    THAN    BELIEF.  6^ 

ed  spiritual  understanding,  Col.  i.  9.  Paul  prays  in  behalf 
of  the  Ephesian  believers  for  a  further  illumination  of  their 
understanding  by  the  Spirit,  "  that  the  God  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Father  of  glory,  may  give  unto  you  the 
Spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation  in  the  knowledge  of  him  ; 
the  eyes  of  your  understanding  being  enlightened,  that  ye 
may  know,"  &€.  Eph.  i.  17,  18.  With  regard  to  faith, 
it  is  plain  that  it  has  its  seat  in  an  enlightened  understand- 
ing. Those  on  whom  the  word  has  its  proper  effect,  are 
they  who  hear  and  understand  it.  Matt.  xiii.  23,  and  the 
highest  degree  of  faith  is  termed  *'  the  full  assurance  of  un- 
derstanding," Col.  ii.  2.  Many  other  passages  might 
be  produced  to  the  same  purpose  ;  but  these  are  sufficient 
to  show  that  the  understanding  is  the  subject  of  regenera. 
tion  as  well  as  the  will ;  that  the  Holy  Spirit  exerts  his  spe- 
cial influence  upon  it,  and  that  failh  has  its  seat  there.  Fur- 
ther, as  the  word  is  the  means  of  regeneration  and  saucti- 
fication,  it  is  plain  that  it  must  be  understood  and  believed 
in  the  judgment  previous  to  its  influence  upon  the  will. 

He  observes,  that  the  mere  force  of  evidence,  however 
clear,  will  not  change  "the  disposition  of  the  heart."  I  ad- 
mit that  it  will  not,  unless  it  be  the  evidence  of  something 
which  is  exceedingly  important,  engaging,  and  interesting, 
appearing  to  the  mind  through  the  enlightening  influence  of 
the  Spirit.  But  does  he  mean  to  deny  that  the  glorious  gos- 
pel  is  mighty  through  God  to  pull  down  strong  holds,  cast  down 
reasonings,  &c.  and  so  to  change  the  disposition  of  the  heart? 
If  so,  then  he  must  deny  that  men  are  regenerated  and  sancti- 
fied through  the  truth,  or  by  the  incorruptible  seed  of  the 
word,  John  xvii.  17.  1  Pet.  i.  23. 

Christ  says,  *'  No  man  can  come  unto  me,  except  the 
Father  who  has  sen-t  me  draw  him,"  John  vi.  44.  On  this 
he  observes,  "  That  the  only  bar  to  which  our  Lord  refers, 
lies  in  that  reluctance  or  aversion  which  the  drawing  of  the 


70  WHETHER   JUSTIFYING    FAITH 

Father  implies  and  removes."*  That  God  removes  the 
aversion  of  the  will  is  freely  granted  ;  but  how,  or  in  what 
order?  By  an  immediate  influence  upon  it,  previous  to 
any  communication  of  spiritual  light  to  the  judgment?  No ; 
for  Christ,  in  the  following  verse,  explains  this  drawing  to 
be  by  divine  teaching  :  "  It  is  written  in  the  prophets,  And 
they  shall  be  all  taught  of  God.  Every  man  therefore  who 
hath  heard  and  learned  of  the  Father  cometh  unto  me," 
ver.  45.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  there  is  a  bar  of  igno- 
rance to  be  removed  as  well  as  of  aversion,  and  that  the  for- 
mer must  be  removed  in  order  to  a  removal  of  the  latter. 
Peter,  addressing  the  Jews,  says,  "  And  now,  brethren,  I 
wot  that  through  ignorance  ye  did  it,  as  did  also  your  ru- 
lers,"  Acts  iii.  17 ;  but  Mr.  Fuller,  upon  his  principle,  would 
have  told  them  that  it  was  only  through  aversion  they  did 
it,  and  that  though  they  knew,  yet  they  crucified  the  Lord  of 
glory.  Paul  says,  «« I  obtained  mercy,  because  I  did  it  ig- 
norantly  in  unbelief,"  1  Tim.  i.  13 ;  but  Mr.  Fuller  would 
have  told  him,  that  had  he  been  duly  convinced  of  his  sin, 
he  would  have  been  sensible  that  he  did  it  knowingly,  and 
that  his  unbelief  was  nothing  but  aversion. 

I  shall  now  take  notice  of  his  arguments  from  Scripture 
to  prove  that  faith  is  more  than  belief,  as  arising  from,  and 
partaking  of  a  moral  state  of  the  heart.     He  observes, 

«  First,  That  faith  is  a  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  and 
from  this  infers  that  it  must  be  of  a  spiritual  and  holy  na- 
ture resembling  its  divine  origin,  f" 

By  a  grace  I  suppose  he  means  a  fruit  of  the  Spirit,  and 
in  this  I  fully  agree  with  him  ;  for  faith  is  the  gift  of  God, 
and  is  given  on  the  behalf  of  Christ,  Eph.  ii.  8.  Phil.  i. 
29  ;  and  I  have  also  inferred  from  this,  that  it  must  be 
spiritual  and  holy  (see  before,  p.  38.)  But  yet  we  difler  as 
to  what  faith  itself  is.     I  view  it  as  the  belief  of  a  spiritually 

♦  Page  65.  f  Page  171. 


INCLUDES    MORE    THAN    BELIEF.  71 

enlightened  understanding  ;  but  he  considers  it  as  consist- 
ing  chiefly  of  the  consent  or  acquiescence  of  the  will,  and 
denies  it  to  be  holy  in  any  other  view.     But  he  proceeds, 

"  Secondly,  Faith  is  that  in  the  exercise  of  which  we  give 
glory  to  God,  Rom.  iv.  20.— If  faith  be  what  Mr.  McLean 
acknowledges  it  to  be,  a  duty,  and  an  exercise  of  obedience, 
its  possessing  such  a  tendency  is  easily  conceived  ;  but  if  it 
be  a  passive  reception  of  the  truth,  on  which  the  moral  state 
of  the  heart  has  no  influence,  how  can  such  a  property  be 
ascribed  to  it  ?'* 

I  do  consider  it  as  an  indispensable  duty  to  believe   all 
that  God  says,  and  look  upon  it  as   obedience,  because  he 
hath  commanded  it.    As  to  the  nature  of  faith  itself,  I  have  no 
other  idea  of  it  than  that  which  the  apostle  gives  of  Abraham's 
faith  in  the  passage  referred  to.     Nothing  can  be  plainer 
than  that  it  was  his  believing  God's  promise  respecting  his 
seed,  (Gen.  xv.  4 — 7.)    And,  notwithstanding  he  knew  that 
its  accomplishment  was  altogether  above  the  power   of  na- 
ture, or  any  fitness  in  himself,  yet  being  the  promise  of  a 
faithful  and  almighty  God,   he  "  against  hope   believed  in 
hope,  that  he  might  become  the  father  of  many  nations,  ac- 
cording  to   that    which   was  spoken,  so  shall  thy  seed  be. 
And  being  not  weak  in  faith,   he  considered  not  his  own 
body  now  dead,  when  he  was  about  an  hundred  years  old, 
neither  yet  the  deadness  of  Sarah's  womb  ;  he  staggered  not 
at  the  promise  of  God  through  unbelief;  but  was  strong  in 
faith,  giving  glory  to  God.     And   being   fully  persuaded, 
that  what  he  had  promised  he  was  able    also   to   perform," 
&c.  v.   18 — 22.     Thus,  in   believing  God's   promise,  he 
gave  him  the  glory  of  his  power  and  faithfulness.     This  ac- 
count of  Abraham's  faith  is  too  plain  to  need  any  comment ; 
and  what  a  contrast  does  it  form  to  the  numerous  and  jar- 
ring descriptions  of  faith  with  which  the   world  has  since 

♦  Page  172. 


72  WHETHER   JUSTIFYING    FAITH 

been  pestered  and  puzzled  !  The  apostle  intends  it  not  only 
as  a  description,  but  commendation  of  Abraham's  faith, 
as  an  example  of  ours,  ver.  23,  24,  25.  Yet  he  says  nothing 
of  the  previous  moral  state  of  Abraham's  heart,  \vhatever 
that  was,  nor  of  the  actings  of  his  will  and  affections,  which 
now  make  the  capital  figure  in  modern  definitions  of  faith. 
Nothing  is  mentioned  but  simply  his  believing  God  accord- 
ing to  that  which  was  spoken,  and  the  strength  of  his  belief. 
And  indeed  nothing  could  be  more  foreign,  or  even  oppo- 
site to  the  apostle's  purpose,  than  to  dwell  upon  Abraham's 
virtuous  and  holy  dispositions  when  setting  him  forth  as 
an  example  of  God's  justifying  the  ungodly  by  faith  with- 
out works.     Another  argument  he  uses  is, 

"  Thirdly,  Faith  is  represented  as  depending  upon  choice, 
or  the  state  of  the  heart  towards  God ;"  for  which  he  cites 
John  xi.  40.  ch.  v.  44.  Mark  ix-  23..* 

As  to  John  xi.  40,  it  contains  our  Lord's  words  to  Mar- 
tha respecting  the  resurrection  of  her  brother,  when  she  ap- 
peared to  be  staggered  at  the  circumstance  of  his  having 
been  so  long  dead,  and  are  intended  to  strengthen  her  faith; 
"  Said  I  not  unto  thee.  If  thou  wouldest  believe,  thou  shouldst 
see  the  glory  of  God  ?"  i.  e.  his  miraculous  power  display- 
ed. Mr.  Fuller  here  lays  the  stress  upon  the  English  aux- 
iliary verb  wouldest,  to  show  that  her  belief  depended  upon 
her  choice.  Yet  he  knows  that  Martha  was  a  believer  in 
Christ  already,  ver.  27  ;^  that  she  believed  her  brother 
would  be  raised  at  the  last  day,  ver.  24 ;  and  not  only  so, 
but  that  Jesus  could  have  prevented  his  death,  or  even  now 
raise  him  up  if  he  pleased,  ver.  21,  22.  What,  then,  was 
the  belief  which  now  depended  on  her  will  ?  Was  it  a  be- 
lief that  Christ  could  or  would  then  raise  her  brother  ?  And 
does  Mr.  Fuller  think  that  she  did  not  choose  to  believe  this, 
or  that  her  doubt  arose  from  aversion  to  it  ?     1  should  like 

♦  Page  172. 


INCLUDES    MORE    THAN    BELIEF.  73 

to  know  how  he  accounts  for  that  slowness  of  heart  which 
appeared  in  the  disciples  to  believe  the  resurrection  of  their 
Lord,  Mark  xvi.  11,  14.  Luke  xxiv.  11,  25.  Will  he  at- 
tribute it  entirely  to  their  disinclination,  or  aversion  of 
heart  to  that  joyful  event  ?  The  truth  is,  believers  may  have 
occasional  doubts  which  do  not  arise  from  aversion  of  heart 
to  the  truth,  but  from  remaining  ignorance,  or  the  absence 
of  evidence  from  the  mind  ;  but  these  doubts  are  not  re- 
moved by  an  act  of  their  will,  but  by  a  renewed  perception 
of  light  and  evidence  in  the  judgment.  Men  frequently 
have  doubts  respecting  things  while  they  earnestly  wish  them 
to  be  true. 

With  respect  to  John  v.  44.  "  How  can  ye  believe  who 
receive  honor  one  of  another,  and  seek  not  the  honor 
which  cometh  from  God  only?"  they  are  Christ's  words  to 
the  unbelieving  Jews,  and  point  out  one  great  cause  of 
their  unbelief,  viz.  their  love  of  human  applause  or  honor, 
with  their  mutual  exchange  of  it  among  themselves,  where- 
by their  consciences  were  fortified  against  conviction  of 
sin,  and  their  spiritual  pride  and  self-righteousness  support- 
ed ;  so  that  while  this  was  the  case,  they  could  not  believe 
on  the  Saviour  of  lost  sinners.  But  Christ  does  not  here 
insinuate  that  their  believing  depended  on  their  choice,  or 
that  any  will  really  seek  the  honor  which  cometh  from  God 
only,  before  they  believe  the  way  of  acceptance  with  him. 

Another  text  is  Mark  ix.  23.  *'  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  If 
thou  CANST  believe,  all  things  are  possible  to  him  that  be- 
lieveth."  On  this  he  asks,  "  If  believing  had  no  depend- 
ance  upon  choice,  or  the  state  of  the  heart,  how  is  it 
that  our  Saviour  should  suspend  the  healing  of  the  child, 
upon  the  parents  being  able  to  exercise  it?  Did  he  sus- 
pend his  mercy  upon  the  performance  of  a  natural  impossi- 
bility ;  or  upon  something  on  which  the  state  of  the  heart 
bad  no  influence  ?"*    To  this  I  answer,  that  belief  is  a  na- 

♦  Page  172. 
7 


74  WHETHER    JUSTIF5?ING   JAITH 

tural  impossibility  in  all  cases  where  there  is  no  informa- 
tion or  evidence  given  ;  for  "  how  shall  they  believe  in 
him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard,"  Rom.  x.  14,  and  though 
this  had  been  the  case  with  the  parent  of  the  child,  yet 
Christ  might  justly  suspend  the  cure  till  that  natural  impos- 
sibility was  removed.  But  it  is  plain  that  he  must  have 
heard  something  of  Christ's  fame  as  to  miraculous  cures, 
and  given  some  credit  to  it,  otherwise  he  would  not  have  ap- 
plied. The  disappointment  he  met  with  in  his  application 
to  the  disciples,  might  raise  or  increase  his  doubts  if  even 
the  power  of  their  master  extended  to  that  case ;  and  this 
seems  to  have  been  the  state  of  his  mind  in  addressing  him 
thus,  "  If  thou  CANST  do  any  thing,  have  compassion  on 
us."  But  it  does  not  appear  that  this  doubt  arose  from  his 
want  of  will,  or  his  not  choosing  to  believe  that  Christ  was 
able  to  cure  his  child  ;  for  nothing  would  have  given  him 
greater  pleasure  than  to  be  fully  persuaded  of  this.  Nor 
was  his  doubt  removed  by  an  act  of  his  own  will,  (though 
not  against  it,)  but  by  Christ's  reply  to  him,  assuring  him 
of  the  sufficiency  of  his  power,  if  he  only  gave  credit  to  it, 
"  If  thou  canst  believe,  all  things  are  possible  to  him  that 
believeth." 

"  Fourthly,  Faith  is  frequently  represented  as  implying 
repentance  for  sin,  which  is  acknowledged  on  all  hands  to 
be  a  holy  exercise,"  Mark  i.  15.  Matt.  xxi.  32.  2  Tim. 
ii.  25.* 

There  is  no  dispute  about  whether  faith  implies  repent- 
ance  for  sin.  It  implies  many  things  which  it  does  not  in- 
clude in  its  nature.  For  instance,  it  implies  both  its  ne- 
cessary causes  and  inseparable  effects ;  but  these  are  not 
faith  itself.  He  observes,  that  "  it  does  not  come  up  to  the 
Scripture  representation  to  say,  repentance  is  a  fruit  of 
faith  ;"  yet  he  owns,  "  that  a  conviction  of  the  being  and 

♦  Page  173. 


INCLUDES    MORE    THAN    BELIEF.  75 

attributes  of  God,  must,  in  the  order  of  nature,  precede  re- 
pentance," i.  e.  even  legal  repentance  ;  and  he  also  admits, 
that  "whenever  the  Scriptures  speak  of  repentance  as  fol- 
lowed by  the  remission  of  sins,  it  will  be  allowed  that  faith 
is  supposed ;  for  repentance  without  faith  could  not  please 
God,  nor  have  any  connection  with  the  promise  of  for- 
giveness." This,  I  think,  is  to  admit  that  repentance  unto 
life  is  a  fruit  of  faith  in  Christ.  But  then  he  says,  "  faith 
without  repentance  would  not  be  genuine."  I  grant  it ; 
but  neither  would  faith  without  works  be  genuine  ;  yet  as 
faith  and  works  are  not  the  same,  neither  is  faith  and  re- 
pentance, though  they  are  more  immediately  connected. 

"Fifthly,  Faith  is  often  expressed  by  terms  which  indi- 
cate the  exercise  of  affection.  It  is  called  receiving  Chris^^ 
John  i.  12, — receiving  the  love  of  the  truth,  that  we  may  be 
saved,  2  Thess.  ii.  10. — In  true  believers  Christ's  words 
have  place,  which  is  more  than  a  mere  assent  of  the  under- 
standing, John  viii.  37, — they,  in  an  honest  and  good  heart, 
having  heard  the  word,  keep  it,  Luke  viii.  15."* 

As  to  receiving  Christ,  Mr.  Fuller  himself  admits  that  it 
is  "  distinct  from  the  belief  of  the  truth  as  an  inseparable  ef- 
fect is  distinct  from  its  cause,"  (see  before,  p.  44,)  and  that 
"  receiving  him,  in  the  order  ofthings,  follows  upon  believing 
the  truth  concerning  him."f  Yet  I  own  that  receiving  the 
testimony  of  God  concerning  him,  is  the  same  as  believing 
in  him. — All  who  truly  believe  the  truth  receive  the  love  of 
it,  because  they  perceive  and  believe  the  loveliness  of  what 
it  reveals ;  but  this  does  not  prove  that  faith  and  love  are 
the  same. — Christ's  words  have  place  in  believers ;  but 
how  does  this  show  that  faith  is  more  than  an  assent  of  the 
understanding  ? — Those  who  have  heard  and  believed  the 
word,  keep,  (or  retain)  it  in  an  honest  and  good  heart,  as  I 
have  already  shown  (see  before,  p.  22,  23  ;)  but  what  is  this 

♦  Page  174.  t  Page  203. 


7G  WHETHER   JUSTIFYING    FAITH 

to  Mr.  Fuller's  purpose  ?  None  of  these  passages  prove 
that  faith  is  the  exercise  of  affection,  or  that  belief  and  love 
are  the  same,  though  in  this  case  they  are  inseparable. 

**  Sixthly,  Belief  is  expressly  said  to  be  with  the  heart, 
Rom.  X.  9,  10;  with  all  the  heart,  Acts  viii.  37."* 

I  have  answered  this  already  (see  p.  47,  48,)  and  shall 
only  here  take  notice  of  his  explanation  of  these  expres- 
sions ;  he  says,  "  Doing  any  thing  with  the  heart,  or  with 
all  the  heart,  are  modes  of  speaking  never  used  in  Scrip- 
ture, I  believe,  for  the  mere  purpose  of  expressing  what  is 
internal  or  mental,  and  which  may  pertain  only  to  the  un- 
derstanding :  they  rather  denote  the  quality  of  unfeignedness, 
a  quality  repeatedly  ascribed  to  faith,  1  Tim.  i.  5,  2  Tim.  i. 
5.  and  which  marks  an  honesty  of  heart  which  is  essential  to 
it"  I  have  not  the  least  objection  to  the  positive  part  of 
this  explanation  ;  for  if  a  man  does  not  believe  unfeigned- 
ly,  he  does  not,  properly  speaking,  believe  at  all,  but  only 
professes  it  with  his  mouth  hypocritically.  But  I  am  per- 
fectly at  a  loss  to  conceive  what  more  there  is  in  an  unfeign- 
ed (or  avvTTOKpiTb-i  unhypocritical)  belief,  than  a  real  internal  or 
mental  belief  with  the  understanding.  I  suspect  it  will  re- 
quire something  beyond  metaphysics  itself  to  explain  this, 
though  I  own  I  am  no  adept  in  that  science. 

"  Seventhly,  The  want  of  faith   is   ascribed  to   moral 

CAUSES,     or    to    THE     WANT    OF     A     RIGHT     DISPOSITION     OF 

HEART."  John  V.  38 — 44,  chap.  viii.  45 — 47. | 

This  is  granted  ;  for  when  the  outward  light  and  evidence 
of  the  gospel  is  set  before  men,  something  more  than  simple 
ignorance  must  be  the  cause  of  their  rejecting  it,  and  so  it 
is  ascribed  also  to  aversion  ;  but  it  does  not  follow  from 
this,  that  any  thing  more  than  that  same  light  and  evidence 
of  the  gospel,  properly  perceived  and  understood,  through 

•  Page  175.  t  Page  175,  176. 


INCLUDES    MORE    THAN    BELIEP.  77 

the  enlighteuing  influence  of  the  Spirit,  is  necessary  to  pro- 
duce faith,  and  so  to  remove  that  aversion. 

"  Lastly,  Unbelief  is  not  a  mere  error  of  the  understand- 
ing, but  a  positive  and  practical  rejection  of  the  gospel. 
John  viii.  45,  46,  47.'-* 

This  argument  is  much  the  same  with  the  last,  and  re- 
quires only  the  same  answer ;  but  I  may  add,  that  though 
unbelief  is  not  a  mere  error  of  the  understanding,  yet  there 
is  some  very  essential  error  of  the  understanding  included 
in  it,  as  the  Scriptures  abundantly  testify ;  and  therefore  to 
affirm  (as  Mr.  Fuller  constantly  does)  that  unbelief "  is 
owing  only  to  the  aversion  of  men's  hearts,  and  nothing 
else,"f  is  to  contradict  a  great  number  of  the  plainest  pas. 
sages  in  the  word  of  God,  and  to  deny  that  any  direct  illu. 
mination  of  the  understanding  is  necessary  to  produce  faith. 
It  is  to  affirm,  that  an  unbeliever  may  have  the  same  ideas 
and  conviction  of  the  evil  and  demerit  of  sin,  and  the  same 
discernment  and  belief  of  the  truth  and  excellency  of  the 
gospel  that  a  believer  has,  and  that  the  only  difference  lies 
in  the  will  or  disposition  of  the  heart. 

Indeed,  if  Mr.  Fuller's  sentiments  and  reasoning  on  this 
subject  be  just,  there  must  be  a  great  deal  of  improprieties 
in  Scripture  language,  which  cannot  fail  to  mislead  us. 
Peter  and  James  inform  us,  that  men  are  born  again  of  the 
incorruptible  seed  of  the  word,  1  Pet.  i.  23,  James  i.  18. 
But  Mr.  Fuller  tells  us,  that,  strictly  speaking,  this  is  not 
the  case,  for  that  they  are  born  again  of  the  Spirit  without 
the  word4  The  Scripture  frequently  attributes  unbelief  to 
ignorance,  or  not  understanding  the  truth,  as  one  cause  of 
it  in  those  who  hear  the  gospel.  Matt.  xiii.  19,  Acts  iii.  17, 
Rom.  X.  3,  1  Tim.  i.  13.  But  Mr.  Fuller  argues  against 
this,  as  if  it  were  a  natural  inability,  like  what  arises  from 
want  of  information  or  natural  capacity,  and  so  inconsistent 

♦  Page  176.  f  Page  177.  t  Page  210. 

7* 


78  WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH 

with  a  moral  one  ;*  and  therefore  ascribes  unbelief  entirely 
to  aversion.  Paul  affirms,  that  faith  is  not  of  ourselves, 
but  is  the  gift  of  God,  Eph.  ii.  8.  But  Mr.  Fuller  affirms, 
that  it  "  cannot  with  any  propriety  be  termed  the  gift  of 
God ;  but  he  gives  us  that  from  which  it  immediately  fol- 
lows."! Now,  if  there  are  so  many  improprieties  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Scripture  on  this  subject,  "  whence  does  it  appear 
that  the  inspired  writers  wrote  or  spoke  intelligibly?" 

In  my  Treatise  on  the  Commission  of  Christ,  after  hav- 
ing shown  that  true  faith  must  be  distinguished  by  its  gen- 
uine effects  on  the  heart  and  life,  and  having  pointed  out 
some  of  its   immediate  effects  on  the  heart,  I  add :  "  But 
these  eff'ects  of  faith,  or,  which  is  the  same,  of  the  truth  be- 
lieved, ought  not  to  be  confounded  with  faith  itself,   as  is 
commonly  done.     Though  faith  is  the  confidence  of  things 
hoped    for,   and  also  worketh  by  love ;  yet    it    is  neither 
hope  nor  love,  for  the  apostle  distinguisheth  it  from  both  ; 
And  now  abideth    faith,  hope,   love,  these  three,  1  Cor. 
xiil.  13.     The  same  may  be  said  of  all  its  other  effects  up- 
on the  heart ;  for  whatever  is  more  than  belief  is  more  than 
faith,  and  ought  to  go  by  another  name,"  p.  82,  83.     And 
in  a  note  below  I  take  notice  of  what  Mr.  Fuller  had  said 
on  this  passage   in   his   letter,  viz.  that  "  faith,  hope,  and 
love  are  three,  considered  only  in  respect  of  their  objects." 
But  he  denies  that  he  "  ever  thought  of  affirming  that  they 
are  three  only  in  that  view."J     If  not,  why  did  he  give  this 
view  as  expressive  of  the  sense  of  the  passage  ?     Does  the 
apostle  affirm  that  they  are  three  in   different  senses  ?     He 
says,  "  My  argument  only  required  me  to  point  out  a  sense 
in  which  they  were  distinct,  provided  they  were  not  so  in 
respect  of  their  holy  nature."§     This,  I  am  obliged  to  say, 
is  a  mere  evasion.     He  knew  I  never  disputed  the  holiness 
of  their  nature  ;  and  he  was  also  sensible  that  his  argument 

•  Page  120.        t  Page  209.       X  Page  199.        ?  Ibid- 


INCLUDES  MORE  THAN  BELIEF.  79 

required  him  to  deny  that  they  are  distinct  in  themselves  ; 
for  to  admit  this,  would  be  to  give  up  his  argument,  and 
therefore  he  places  the  distinction  of  faith,  hope,  and  love 
in  their  objects  :  "the  object  of  faith  being  revealed  truth — 
of  hope,  future  good — and  of  love,  the  holy  amiableness  of 
God,  and  of  whatever  bears  his  image." 

In  answer  to  this  I  observed,  "  That  the  apostle  is  not 
speaking  of  the  objects  of  faith,  hope,  and  love,  but  of  them- 
selves ;  and  if  they  are  not  three  as  distinguished  from 
each  other,  their  objects  can  never  make  them  three.  The 
apostle  says,  the  greatest  of  these  is  love  ;  but  love  is  not 
greater  than  faith  and  hope  in  respect  of  its  object,  but  in 
its  own  nature  ;  which  shows  that  faith,  hope,  and  love,  are 
different  from  each  other,  and  properly  termed  three."  Now, 
what  reply  does  Mr.  Fuller  make  to  this  1  only  the  follow- 
ing :  "  I  see  no  solidity  in  Mr.  M'Lean's  objection  to  an 
objective  distinction."*  This  is  a  very  easy  reply  ;  but  I 
can  excuse  him  for  once,  being  confident  that  if  a  better 
had  occurred  to  him,  it  should  not  be  wanting.  The  whole 
drift  of  his  reasoning  on  the  nature  of  faith  is  to  confound 
it  with  love,  hope,  and  other  fruits  of  the  Spirit ;  and  though 
the  apostle  distinguishes  them  numerically  as  three,  and  ex- 
pressly says,  that  love  is  the  greatest  of  these  three  ;  yet  he 
professes  to  see  nothing  solid  in  my  objection  to  a  mere 
objective  distinction,  i.  e.  he  sees  no  reason  why  it  may 
not  be  admitted  that  love  has  a  greater  object  than  either 
faith  or  hope  have  !  But,  though  this  absurdity  were  ad- 
mitted, it  would  not  favor  his  cause ;  for  love  could  not 
have  a  greater  object  than  faith  has,  unless  it  were  distinct 
from  it. 

Mr.  Fuller  was  sensible  that  he  could  not  answer  my 
objection  to  his  view  of  this  passage,  and  therefore  has  re- 
course  to   misrepresentation.       "  Mr.  M'Lean,"  he    says, 

•     age  199. 


80  WHETHER   JUSTIFYING    FAITH 

^'  thinks  that  faith,  love,  and  hope  are  distinct  as  to  their  na- 
ture."— True  ;  but  then  he  adds — "and  that  the  excellency 
ascribed  to  love,  consists  in  its  being  holy ;  whereas  faith  is 
not  so."*  Had  he  given  this  as  an  inference  of  his  own 
from  my  view  of  faith,  it  might  pass  as  a  piece  of  reasoning, 
however  unfair  ;  but  to  state  it  directly  as  my  sentiment, 
or  as  what  I  think,  is,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  a  violation  of  truth, 
and  altogether  unworthy  of  Mr.  Fuller.  He  also  affirms,  that 
"It  has  been  farther  objected,"  viz  :  to  the  holiness  of  faith, 
"that  the  reception  of  God's  testimony  is  compared  to  a 
reception  of  a  human  testimony  ;  and  as  a  disposition  of 
heart,  whether  holy  or  unholy,  is  not  necessary  to  the  one, 
so  neither  is  it  to  the  other."|  But  this  objection  is  entire- 
ly of  Mr.  Fuller's  own  framing ;  and  he  well  knows  that 
the  note  he  alludes  to  (Commission,  p.  75,)  contains  no  ob- 
jection to  the  holiness  of  faith,  as  I  have  already  abundant- 
ly shown.  See  before,  page  55,  56.  Further,  he  amuses 
his  readers  with  part  of  a  private  conversation  which  passed 
between  us  at  Kettering  :  "  Mr.  M'Lean,  when  asked 
whether  hope  did  not  imply  desire,  and  desire  love  ?  answer- 
ed, Yes,  hope  is  a  modification  of  love.  It  was  replied, 
Then  you  have  given  up  your  argument. "J  It  may,  per- 
haps, have  been  inaccurate  to  term  hope  a  modification  of 

♦  Page  199.  t  Ibid. 

t  Page  199.  Mr.  Fuller  has  written  this  to  several  of  his  corre- 
spondents both  in  England  and  Scotland  ;  some  of  his  letters  I  had 
seen  before  I  took  notice  of  it  in  the  note,  Commission,  p.  82.  My 
visit  to  Mr.  Fuller  was  not  with  a  view  to  litigate  points,  but  to  culti- 
vate intimacy  and  friendship,  I  therefore  declined  following  out  any 
dispute  upon  differences  which  occurred  in  conversation  ;  but  promis- 
ed to  write  him  my  thoughts  upon  these  things  when  I  got  home, 
•which  1  accordingly  did.  If  he  thinks  it  dangerous  to  correspond 
with  authors  even  when  names  are  concealed,  it  must  be  much  more 
so  to  converse  with  those  of  them  who  wish  to  take  advantage,  and 
publish  names.  His  proclamation  of  victory,  however,  is  rather  pre- 
mature. 


INCLUDES   MORE    THAN   BELIEF.  8l 

love,  as  it  seems  to  throw  down  the  apostolic  distinction  be- 
tween them.  All  I  meant  was,  that  hope  implies  love;  and 
I  might  have  added,  that  despair,  its  very  opposite,  also  im- 
plies love,  without  in  the  least  giving  up  my  argument. 
But  let  us  bring  the  matter  to  the  principles  of  common 
sense.  An  agreeable  and  interesting  object,  believed  or 
realized  in  the  mind  as  such,  excites  love  or  desire.  A 
probable  prospect  of  obtaining  it,  is  1  o|  e .  The  want  of  this 
is  despair.  But  the  actual  enjoyment  of  the  object,  while 
it  perfects  love,  admits  of  neither  hope  nor  despair.  Here 
the  following  two  things  are  obvious,  1.  That  the  distinc- 
tion in  the  above  cases  is  not  objective ;  for  faith,  love,  de- 
sire, hope,  and  despair,  relate  only  to  one  object.  2.  That 
though  both  hope  and  despair  imply  love  to  that  object,  yet 
they  are  not  the  same  as  love,  for  love  exists  most  perfect- 
ly without  them.  I  cannot  therefore  give  up  my  argument, 
that  faith,  love,  and  hope  are  three,  considered  in  themselves, 
and  that  love  is  the  greatest  of  these  three,  till  I  find  a  more 
solid  reason  for  doing  so  than  anything  which  Mr.  Fuller  has 
yet  advanced.  Nay,  I  am  confident  that  Mr.  Fuller  must  give 
up  his  argument,  before  he  can  give  any  explanation  of  this 
passage  that  will  bear  examination. 

Though  faidi,  hope,  and  love  are  all  holy  fruits  of  the 
Spirit,  and  inseparably  connected  in  the  hearts  of  true  Chris- 
tians while  in  this  pilgrimage  state  ;  yet  love  is  the  great- 
est of  them  both  in  respect  of  its  nature  and  duration. — 1.  It 
is  the  greatest  of  them  in  respect  of  its  nature,  as  being 
more  like  God,  or  bearing  more  of  his  moral  image  than 
either  faith  or  hope.  We  are  expressly  and  repeatedly  told 
that  "God  is  love,"  1  John  iv.  7,  8,  16  ;  but  it  does  not  ap- 
pear  that  either  faith  or  hope  can  with  any  propriety  be 
ascribed  to  the  Divine  Being  ;  for  as  his  wisdom,  know- 
ledo-e  and  understandinir  are  infinite,  and  extend  immediate- 
ly  to  every  thing,  he  has  no  occasion  to  receive  any  thing 
upon  testimony  ;  and  as  he  is  possessed  of  perfect  happi- 


82  WHETHER   JUSTIFYING   FAITH 

ness  in  and  of  himself,  and  has  every  thing  that  pleases 
him  immediately  in  his  power,  so  there  is  no  room  to  hope 
or  wish  for  any  thing  beyond  this.  It  is  evident  that  faith 
and  hope,  however  excellent,  are  peculiar  to  dependent  and 
imperfect  creatures,  and  are  adapted  to  our  present  state, 
while  as  yet  we  have  not  the  immediate  sight  and  posses- 
sion of  their  objects.  2.  Love  is  the  greatest  in  respect  of 
its  duration.  The  state  of  things  to  which  faith  and  hope 
are  adapted  will  come  to  an  end.  Their  objects  are  things 
not  seen,  and  made  known  to  us  at  present  only  by  the  di- 
vine testimony  and  promise;  but  when  they  become  objects 
of  sight  and  enjoyment,  there  will  be  no  more  occasion 
for  faith  and  hope ;  "  for  what  a  man  seeth  why  doth  he 
yet  hope  for  ?"  Rom.  viii.  24.  They  will  then  give  place 
to  the  immediate  vision  and  fruition  of  their  objects.  But 
love  never  faileth.  That  which  supersedes  faith  and  hope 
perfects  love,  which  shall  endure  for  ever  in  the  glorified 
state. 

A  time  shall  come,  when  constant  faith 

And  patient  hope  shall  die  ; 
One  lost  in  certainty  of  sight, 

And  one  dissolv'd  m  joy. 

But  love  shall  last  when  these  no  more 

Shall  warm  the  pilgrim's  breast, 
Or  open  on  his  dying  eyes 

His  long-expected  rest : 

Love's  unextinguish'd  ray  shall  burn 
Through  death,  unchang'd  its  fi-ame: 

Its  lamp  shall  triumph  o'er  the  grave 
With  uncorrupted  flame. 

Thus  it  appears  that  faith,  hope,  and  love,  are  in  the 
strictest  propriety  of  speech  termed  three,  and  that  the  great- 
est of  these  is  love.     And  therefore  every  attempt  to  con- 


INCLUDES   MORE    THAN    BELIEF.  S3 

found  faith  and  love,  particularly  on  the  point  of  a  sinner's 
acceptance  with  God,  is  to  pervert  the  Scripture  doctrine 
of  justification  by  faith  only. 


QUESTION  III. 


WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD    AS    THE 
JUSTIFIER    OF    THE    UNGODLY? 

On  this  important  question  I  shall,  1 .  Recite  what  I  have 
already  advanced  in  my  Treatise  on  the  Commission  of 
Christ ;  and  then — 2.  Examine  Mr.  Fuller's  sentiments  on 
this  subject. 

What  I  have  advanced  on  this  subject  in  the  Commission 
is  contained  in  the  following  words  : 

"It  will  perhaps  be  asked,  Why  so  nice  in  distinguish- 
ing here  ?  What  harm  can  arise  from  including  in  the  na- 
ture of  faith  such  holy  dispositions,  affections,  and  exercises 
of  heart,  as  are  confessedly  inseparable  from  it?  In  answer 
to  this,  let  it  be  considered, 

"  1.  That  unless  we  carefully  distinguish  faith  from  its 
effects,  particularly  on  the  point  of  a  sinner's  acceptance 
with  God,  the  important  doctrine  of  free  justification  by 
faith  alone  will  be  materially  affected.  The  Scriptures 
pointedly  declare.  That  God  justifies  sinners  "freely  by 
HIS  grace,  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Jesus 
Christ,"  Rom.  iii.  24,  and  that  this  justification  is  received 
"through  FAITH  in  Christ's  blood,"  ver.  25.  Faith  in  this 
case  is  always  distinguished  from,  and  opposed  to  the  works 


WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD,    ETC.       85 

of  the  law,  Rom.  iii.  26,  27,  28.  chap.  ix.  32,  Gal.  ii.  16, 
chap.  iii.  9 — 15,  not  merely  of  the  ceremonial  law  which 
was  peculiar  to  the  Jews  ;  but  of  that  law  by  which  is  the 
knowledge  of  sin,  Rom.  iii.  20,  which  says,  "  Thou  shall 
not  covet,"  chap.  vii.  7,  and  which  requires  not  only  out- 
ward good  actions,  but  love  and  every  good  disposition  of 
heart,  both  towards  God  and  our  neighbor,  Matt.  xxii.  37 
- — 41  ;  so  that  the  works  of  this  law  respect  the  heart  as  well 
as  life.  The  distinction  therefore  between  faith  and  works, 
on  this  subject,  is  not  that  which  is  between  inward  and 
outward  conformity  to  the  law  ;  for  if  faith  is  not  in  this 
case  distinguished  from,  and  opposed  to  our  conformity  to 
the  law  both  outwardly  and  inwardly,  it  cannot  be  said  that 
we  are  '•  justified  by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law," 
Rom.  iii.  28,  or  that  God  "justifieth  the  ungodly,"  chap, 
iv.  6.  Faith,  indeed,  as  a  principle  of  action,  "worketh  by 
love  ;"  but  it  is  not  as  thus  working  that  it  is  imputed  for 
righteousness ;  for  it  is  expressly  declared  that  righteous- 
ness is  imputed  "to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  bkliev- 
ETH  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly." — "It  is  of  faith 
that  it  might  be  by  grace,"  chap.  iv.  16,  and  grace  and 
works  are  in  this  case  represented  as  incompatible  with 
each  other,  chap.  xi.  6  ;  for  "to  him  that  worketh  is  the 
reward  not  reckoned  of  grace  but  of  debt,"  chap.  iv.  4. 
Now,  when  men  include  in  the  very  nature  of  justifying 
faith  such  good  dispositions,  holy  affections,  and  pious  ex- 
ercises of  heart  as  the  moral  law  requires,  and  so  make  them 
necessary  (no  matter  under  what  consideration)  to  a  sin- 
ner's acceptance  with  God,  it  perverts  the  apostle's  doctrine 
upon  this  important  subject,  and  makes  justification  to  be, 
at  least,  "as  it  were  by  the  works  of  the  law." 

"2.  The  eftect  of  such  doctrine  upon  the  mind  of  an 
awakened  siuner  is  obvious.  He  who  conceives  that,  in 
order  to  his  pardon  and  acceptance  with  God,  he  must  first 
be  possessed  of  such  good  dispositions  and  holy  aflJections 

8 


86  WHETHER   JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

as  are  commonly  included  in  the  nature  of  faith,  will  find 
no  immediate  relief  from  the  gospel,  nor  any  thing  in  it 
which  fully  reaches  his  case  while  he  views  himself  merely 
as  a  guilty  sinner.  Instead  of  believing  on  him  that  justi- 
fieth  the  ungodly,  he  believes,  on  the  contrary,  that  he  cannot 
be  justified  till  he  sustains  an  opposite  character.  Though 
Christ  died  for  sinners — for  the  ungodly,  yet  he  does  not 
believe  that  Christ's  death  will  be  of  any  benefit  to  him  as 
a  mere  sinner,  but  as  possessed  of  holy  dispositions  ;  nor 
does  he  expect  relief  to  his  conscience  purely  and  directly 
from  the  atonement,  but  through  the  medium  of  a  better 
opinion  of  his  own  heart  or  character.  This  sentiment,  if 
he  is  really  concerned  about  the  salvation  of  his  soul,  must 
set  him  upon  attempts  to  reform  his  heart,  and  to  do  some- 
thing under  the  notion  of  acting  faith,  that  he  may  be  justi- 
fied ;  and  all  his  endeavors,  prayers,  and  religious  exercises 
will  be  directed  to  that  end."  Commission  of  Christ,  page 
83,  84,  85. 

The  reader  has  here  before  him  the  whole  of  that  passage 
which  Mr.  Fuller  so  strenuously  opposes,  and  loads  with 
the  most  odious  consequences.  He  will  perceive  that  I  am 
not  here  speaking  of  faith  as  it  works  by  love,  or  as  a  principle 
of  sanctification,  or  holiness  of  heart  and  life  (which  I  had 
mentioned  a  little  before,)  but  merely  as  it  relates  to  justi- 
fication, or  respects  the  ground  of  a  sinner's  acceptance 
with  God ;  so  that,  whatever  Mr.  Fuller  opposes  to  it,  must  be 
restricted  to  that  point,  otherwise  it  is  nothing  to  the  pur- 
pose. The  reader  wiK.  also  observe,  that  I  am  not  here  de- 
nying that  faith  itself  is  a  holy  principle ;  but  I  am  oppos- 
ing those  who  "include  in  the  very  nature  of  faith  as  justi- 
fying, such  good  dispositions,  holy  affections,  and  pious  ex- 
ercises of  heart  as  the  moral  law  requires,  and  so  make  them 
necessary  to  a  sinner's  acceptance  with  God."  This  I  con- 
sider  as  perverting  the  dctiae  of  justification  by  faith  alone. 
I  had  no  particular  view  to  Mr.  Fuller  in  this,  it  being  a 


AS   THE    JUSTiriER   OF    THE    UNGODLY*  87 

thing  too  common  with  many ;  but  as  he  finds  himself  con- 
cerned to  defend  it,  he  ought  to  do  it  in  plain  and  express 
terms,  and  deny  that  sinners  are  justified  by  faith  only,  that 
there  is  any  thing  peculiar  to  faith  in  justification,  or  that  it 
is  any  more  calculated  to  exclude  boasting,  and  to  corres- 
pond with  grace  in  this  matter,  than  if  we  were  justified  by 
love,  or  the  exercise  of  any  other  virtue.  But,  instead  of 
this,  he  involves  the  subject  in  a  train  of  reasoning,  where- 
in he  sometimes  appears  to  me  both  to  admit  and  deny  the 
same  things  alternately. 

What  I  have  said  of  the  effects  of  this  doctrine  on  the 
minds  of  awakened  sinners,  is,  I  am  confident,  fully  veri- 
fied in  the  experience  of  all  who  have  seriously  come  un- 
der its  proper  influence.  An  awakened  sinner  asks,  ^'  What 
must  I  do  to  be  saved?"  and  an  apostle  answers,  "Believe 
on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,"  show- 
ing him  at  the  same  time  what  he  is  to  believe,  and  thus  he 
is  relieved  and  made  happy,  Acts  xvi.  30 — 35.  But  a  preach- 
er of  the  doctrine  I  am  opposing  would  have  taught  him  an- 
other lesson.  He  might,  indeed,' in  compliance  with  scrip- 
ture language,  use  the  word  believe  ;  but  he  would  tell  him 
that,  in  this  case,  it  did  not  bear  its  usual  sense,  that  it  was 
not  the  assent  of  his  understanding  in  giving  credit  to  the 
testimony  of  the  gospel,  but  a  grace  arising  from  a  previous 
spiritual  principle,  and  including  in  it  a  number  of  holy  af- 
fections and  dispositions  of  heart,  all  which  he  must  ex- 
ercise and  set  a  working  in  order  to  his  being  justified  ;  and 
many  directions  will  be  given  him  how  he  is  to  perform  this. 
But  this  is  to  destroy  the  freedom  of  the  gospel,  and  to  make 
the  hope  of  a  sinner  turn  upon  his  finding  some  virtuous 
exercises  and  dispositions  in  his  own  heart,  instead  of  pla- 
cing it  directly  in  the  work  finished  by  the  Son  of  God  up- 
on the  cross.  In  opposition  to  this  I  maintain,  that  what- 
ever virtue  or  holiness  may  be  supposed  in  the  nature  of 
faith  itself,  as  it  is  not  the  ground  of  a  sinner's  justification 


88  WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

in  the  sight  of  God,  so  neither  does  it  enter  into  the  considera- 
tion of  the  person  who  is  really  believing  unto  righteousness. 
He  views  himself  not  as  exercising  virtue,  but  only  as  a  mere 
sinner,  while  he  believes  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungod- 
ly through  the  atonement.  This  view  of  the  divine  cha- 
racter, at  which  others  startle  so  much,  is  to  him  most  pre- 
cious, as  being  the  only  view  which  suits  his  case,  and 
which  alone  can  give  him  hope.  And  though  he  must  be 
conscious  that  he  now  perceives  and  believes  the  gospel 
ground  of  hope,  and  experiences  relief  from  it ;  yet  he  can 
ascribe  no  holiness  to  himself  on  that  account.  His  thoughts 
centre  entirely  in  the  object  of  his  belief  as  all  his  salva- 
tion and  all  his  desire.  And  if  before  this  he  has  been  se- 
riously engaged  in  religious  exercises  to  pacify  his  con- 
science and  make  his  peace  with  God,  he  will  now  be  so  far 
from  looking  upon  these  as  having  prepared  him  for  Christ, 
or  contributed  to  his  present  relief,  that  he  will  consider 
them  as  having  had  a  contrary  tendency. 

Mr.  Fuller  sometimes  seems  to  agree  with  the  above 
etatement,  at  least  in  part.  He  admits,  that  "  though 
faith,  as  a  principle  of  action,  worketh  by  love  ;  yet  it  is 
not  as  thus  working,  that  it  is  imputed  for  righteousness. — 
That  justification  by  faith  is  opposed  to  justification  by  the 
works  of  the  law,  even  those  works  which  are  internal  as 
well  as  those  which  are  external. — That  faith  is  not  suppos- 
ed to  justify  us  as  a  work,  or  holy  exercise,  or  as  being  any 
part  of  that  which  is  accounted  unto  us  for  righteousness  ; 
but  merely  as  that  which  unites  to  Christ,  for  the  sake  of 
whose  righteousness  alone  we  are  accepted."*  And  with 
regard  to  the  view  which  a  sinner  has  of  his  own  character 
when  he  believes  in  Jesus,  he  says,  *'  He  that  believeth  in 
Jesus  Christ,  must  believe  in  him  as  he  is  revealed  in  the 
gospel :  and  that   is  as  the  Saviour  of  sinners.     It  is  only 

♦  Page  178,  182. 


AS    THE    JUSTIFIER    OF    THE    UNGODLY.  89 

as  a  sinner,  exposed  to  the  righteous  displeasure  of  God, 
that  he  must  approach  him.  If  he  think  of  coming  to  him 
as  a  favorite  of  heaven,  or  as  possessed  of  any  good  quali- 
ties which  may  recommend  him  before  other  sinners,  he 
deceives  his  soul :  such  notions  are  the  bar  to  believ- 
ing."*—He  worketh  not  with  respect  to  justification. — All  his 
hopes  of  mercy  are  those  of  a  sinner,  an  ungodly  sinner."! 

Here  Mr.  Fuller  admits  that  faith  does  not  justify 
either  as  an  internal  or  external  work,  or  holy  exercise,  or 
as  being  any  part  of  that  which  is  imputed  unto  us  for  right- 
eousness ;  and  did  not  other  parts  of  his  writings  appear  to 
clash  with  this,  I  should  rest  satisfied.  But  I  own  that  I  am 
not  without  a  suspicion  that  Mr.  Fuller  here  only  means, 
That  faith  does  not  justify  as  the  procuring  cause  or  meri- 
torious ground  of  a  sinner's  justification  and  acceptance 
with  God  ;  and  that  while  we  hold  this  point,  we  may  in- 
clude as  much  virtue  and  holy  exercise  of  the  will  and  affec- 
tions in  the  nature  of  justifying  faith  as  we  please,  without 
affecting  the  point  of  justification,  as  that  stands  entirely 
upon  another  ground,  viz.  the  righteousness  of  Christ. 

But  it  must  be  carefully  observed,  that  the  difference  be- 
tween us  does  not  respect  the  meritorious  procuring  cause 
of  justification  ;  but  the  way  in  which  we  receive  it.  The 
Scriptures  abundantly  testify  that  we  are  justified  by  faith, 
which  shows  that  faith  has  some  concern  in  this  matter ; 
and  Mr.  Fuller  admits  that  justification  is  ascribed  to  faith 
« merely  as  that  which  unites  to  Christ,  for  the  sake  of 
whose  righteousness  alone  we  are  accepted."  Therefore 
the  only  question  between  us  is  this.  Does  faith  unite  us  to 
Christ,  and  so  receive  justification  through  his  righteous- 
ness merely  in  crediting  the  divine  testimony  respecting 
the  sufHciency  of  that  righteousness  alone  to  justify  us  ? 
Or,    Does    it  unite  us  to   Christ,  and   obtain  justification 

♦  Page  111.  t  Page  185,  186. 

8* 


90  WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

through  his  righteousness  by  virtue  of  its  being  a  moral  ex- 
cellency, and  as  including  the  holy  exercise  of  the  will  and 
affections'?     The  former  is  my  view  of  this  matter  ;  the  lat- 
ter, if  I  am  not  greatly  mistaken,  is  Mr.  Fuller's.     1  hold 
that  sinners  are  justified   through  Christ's  righteousness  by 
faith  alone,  or  purely  in  believing  that  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  which  he  finished  on  the  cross,  and  which  was  de- 
clared to  be  accepted  by  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  is 
alone  sufficient  for   their  pardon  and  acceptance  with  God, 
however  guilty  and  unworthy  they  are.     But,  in  opposition 
to  this,  the  whole  strain  of  Mr.    Fuller's  reasoning  tends  to 
show  that  sinners   are  not  justified  by  faith  alone,  but  by 
faith  working  by   love,  or  including  in  it  the  holy  exercise 
of  the  will  and   affections  ;  and  this   addition   to  faith  he 
makes  to  be  that  qualification  in  it  on  which  the  fitness  or 
congruity  of  an  interest  in  Christ's  righteousness  depends.* 
Without  this  addition,  he  considers  faith  itself,  whatever  be 
its  grounds  or  object,  to  be  a  mere  empty  unholy  specula- 
tion, which  requires  no  influence  of  the   Spirit  to  produce 
it.f     So  that,  if  what  is   properly  termed  faith  has,  in   his 
opinion,  any  place  at  all  in  justification,  it  must  be  merely  on 
account  of  the  holy  exercises  and  affections  which  attend  it. 
In  the   note    (Commission,  p.    76),  I  put  the  question, 
"  Of  what  use  is  it  to  contend  for  the  moral   excellence  of 
faith,  in  point  of  justification  ?"     To  this  he  answers,  1. 
That  it  is  of  importance  that  faith  be  considered  as  a  duty. 
2.  It  is  of  importance  that  it  be  genuine,  or  such  as   will 
carry  us  to  heaven,  and  not  dead  or  unproductive ;  and,  3. 
That  unbelief  be  allowed  to  be  a  sin.":j:     All  this  I  admit  is 
of  very  great  importance,  and  might  be  a  proper  answer  to 
a  question   relating  to   the  marks   of  true  faith ;  to  which 
might  be  added,  that  it  is  of  importance  that  faith  produce 
good  works,  without  which  it  is  dead,  being  alone.     But,  as 

♦  Page  183,  184.  t  Page  128.  t  Page  166. 


AS    THE    JUSTIFIER    OF    THE    UNGODLY,  91 

it  is  intended  as  a  direct  answer  to  my  question  on  the  use 
of  the  moral  excellence  of  faith,  in  point  of  justification,  it 
must  import  that  faith  justifies  as  a  duty,  and  as  it  is  a 
moral  excellence,  and  productive  or  fruitful. 

In  his   letter  he  says,  "  Though  faith  be  a  moral  excel- 
lency, yet  it  is  not  on  account  of  that  excellency  that  justi- 
fication is  ascribed  to  it ;  for  if  we  were  justified  by  faith  as 
a  virtue,  we  might  as  well  be  justified  by  love,  &c.,  either 
would  be  justification    by   our   own    righteousness."     He 
cannot,  consistently  with  himself,  mean  any  thing  by  this, 
but  that  faith,   as  a  virtue,  is  not  the  meritorious  ground  of 
our  justification  ;  not  that  it   does  not,  as  a  virtue,   obtain 
justification  through  Christ's  righteousness  :   for,  as  he  in- 
cludes the  exercise  of  the  will  and  affections  in  the  very  na- 
ture of  justifying  faith,  and  confounds  it  so  with  love,  as  to 
annihilate  its  distinctive   character,  we  cannot  in  that  case 
be  justified   by  faith  as  distinguished  from  love ;  and  every 
attempt  to  distinguish  them   here,  is  at  once  to  give  up  all 
the    arguments   whereby  he  has   endeavored  to   confound 
them. 

That  he  considers   faith  to  justify  as  a  virtue,  is  further 
evident  from    what  he  says  in  the  same  letter  :   "  May  not 
faith  include  the  acquiescence  of  the  heart,  and  so  be  a  mo- 
ral  excellency ;  and  may  there   not  be   a  fitness  in  God's 
justifying  those  persons  who  thus  acquiesce,  without  any 
foundation  being   laid  for  boasting  ]"     Here  we  see  that 
he  makes  the  moral  excellency  of  faith  to  consist  in  the  ac- 
quiescence of  the  heart,  or  the  exercise  of  the  will  and  af- 
fections, and  places   the  fitness  of  God's  justifying  upon 
that  ground.     My  answer  to  this  was,  "  That  the  distinction 
between  this  and  being  justified  by  faith  as  a  virtue,  is  too 
fine  ;  for  if  this  fitness  in  God's  justifying,  arises  from  the 
moral  excellency  of  faith,  we  must  undoubtedly  be  justified 
by  faith  as  a  virtue,  in  some  sense  or  other."     And  in  the 
note,  (Commission,  p.  76,)  I  further  observed,  *' That  as 


92  WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

this  fitness  in  God's  justifying,  is  placed  upon  faith's  being 
a  moral  excellency,  it  must  be  such  a  fitness  as  is  between 
virtue  and  its  reward;  and  so  this  is  only  a  roundabout 
way  of  saying  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  as  a  virtue, 
which  is  above  acknowledged  to  be  justification  by  our  own 
righteousness." 

I  am  aware  that  there  are  different  kinds  of  fitness.  A 
person  may  have  a  natural  fitness  for  a  certain  state,  not  be- 
cause he  is  possessed  of  virtue,  but  merely  because  his  quali- 
fications and  that  state  are  naturally  adapted  or  suited  to 
each  other.  Again,  a  person  may  have  a  moral  fitness  for 
a  state,  when  his  virtue  commends  him  to  it,  or  when  he 
is  put  into  a  good  state,  as  a  fit  or  suitable  testimony  of  re- 
gard to  the  moral  excellency  of  his  qualifications  or  acts. 
The  last,  I  think,  must  be  what  Mr.  Fuller  means  by  a  fit- 
ness in  God's  justifying,  because  he  grounds  it  upon  the 
moral  excellency  of  faith,  or  rather  of  its  immediate  ef- 
fects. Yet  he  wishes  to  avoid  the  term  moral  fitness,  and 
in  another  letter  says,  "  A  fitness  of  wisdom  is  the  whole 
for  which  I  contend."  This,  however,  is  no  explanation  of 
his  meaning ;  for  a  fitness  of  wisdom  applies  both  to  a  na- 
tural and  moral  fitness.  But  as  he  labors  to  prove  that  the 
virtuous  exercises  of  the  will  and  affections  are  included  in 
the  nature  of  justifying  faith,  in  order  to  show  that  there  is 
a  fitness  in  God's  justifying  such  as  are  thus  virtuously  exer- 
cised, what  other  kind  of  fitness  can  he  possibly  mean  in 
such  a  connection,  or  according  to  the  scope  of  his  reason- 
ing, but  the  fitness  of  justifying  a  virtuous  character  ? 

After  all,  I  freely  admit  that  there  is  a  fitness  in  faith  cor- 
responding to  the  gospel  method  of  salvation,  but  it  is  of  a 
rery  different  nature  from  what  has  been  stated  above.  The 
salvation  by  Christ  is  communicated  to  men  by  means  of 
the  revelation  concerning  it ;  and  faith  alone  is  adapted  to 
perceive  the  import,  and  realize  the  truth  of  that  revelation, 
and  so  has  a  fitness  to  receive  benefits  conveyed  by  testi- 


AS    THE    JUSTIFIER    OF    THE    UNGODLY.  93 

mony  which  no  other  fruit  of  the  Spirit  has.  This  office  is 
equally  peculiar  to  it  as  seeing  is  to  the  eye,  or  hearing  to 
the  ear,  to  both  which  it  is  compared,  Isa.  xlv.  22,  ch.  Ixv. 
1,  ch.  Iv.  3.  Again,  the  great  doctrines  of  the  gospel  are 
supernatural  truths,  which  cannot  be  known  by  intuition, 
experience,  or  the  deductions  of  reason  from  any  known 
principles,  but  purely  by  revelation,  2  Cor.  ii.  9,  10  ;  and 
the  only  evidence  of  their  truth  is  the  manifestation  which 
God  hath  made  of  himself  as  the  Author  of  that  revelation. 
Now,  faith  is  adapted  to  receive  such  truths  upon  the  autho- 
rity of  God  without  any  other  evidence,  and  even  when  all 
we  know  of  nature  seems  to  contradict  them.  A  striking 
instance  of  this  we  have  in  the  faith  of  Abraham,  which  is 
set  before  us  as  an  example  of  ours.  He  believed  God's 
promise,  that  he  should  become  the  father  of  many  nations  : 
and  though  both  he  and  Sarah  were  past  age,  yet  he  took 
not  that  into  consideration  as  any  objection.  God,  who 
quickeneth  the  dead,  and  calleth  those  things  which  be  not 
as  though  they  were,  had  promised  it,  and  that  was  enough 
to  him  ;  so  that  "  against  hope,  he  believed  in  hope  that  he 
might  become  the  father  of  many  nations  ;  according  to 
what  which  was  spoken.  So  shall  thy  seed  be. — And  being 
fully  persuaded  that  what  he  had  promised,  he  was  able  also 
to  pertbrrn,  and  therefore  it  was  imputed  to  him  for  righteous- 
ness." Rom.  iv.  17 — 23.  In  like  manner  righteousness 
shall  be  imputed  tons  "  if  we  believe  on  him  that  raised 
up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead,  who  was  delivered  for 
our  offences,  and  raised  again  for  our  justification,"  ver.  24, 
25.  And  if  our  faith  is  of  the  same  kind  with  that  of  Abra- 
ham, it  will  surmount  every  discouragement  arising  from 
the  consideration  of  our  natural  unfitness  to  be  justified  ;  it 
being  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  that  raised  up 
Christ  from  the  dead,  for  our  justification,  chap.  x.  9,  10. 
Col.  ii.  12. 

But  the  main  thing  to  be  considered  on  this  head,  is  the 


94  WHETHER    JUSIFTING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

peculiar  and  exclusive  suitableness  of  faith  to  receive  justi- 
fication, and  every  other  spiritual  blessing  purely  of  grace  ; 
i.  e.  of  mere  free  favor  to  the  utterly  worthless  and  unde. 
serving.  The  declared  design  of  God  in  the  salvation  of 
sinners,  is  the  manifestation  of  his  own  glory,  and  especieJ- 
ly  the  glory  of  his  sovereign  free  grace.  It  is  "  that  he 
might  make  known  the  riches  of  his  glory  on  the  vessels 
of  mercy  which  he  had  afore  prepared  unto  glory,"  Rom.  ix. 
23, — "  That  we  should  be  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his 
grace,"  Eph.  i.  6,  12,  and  "that  he  might  show  the  exceed- 
ing riches  of  his  grace,  in  his  kindness  towards  us,  through 
Christ  Jesus,"  chap.  ii.  7.  The  sovereignty  and  freedom 
of  divine  grace  is  not  only  displayed  and  magnified  in  elec- 
tion and  redemption  in  which  men  could  not  possibly  have 
any  hand  ;  but  also  in  the  application  of  this  redemption, 
and  particularly  in  justification.  It  is  chiefly  on  this  head 
that  the  apostle  insists  so  much  on  the  freedom  of  divine 
grace,  because  it  is  in  opposition  to  this  that  the  self-right- 
eous bias  of  the  human  heart  operates  most  powerfully, 
leading  men  to  seek  for  some  virtuous  qualifications  in 
themselves,  that  may  account  for  their  being  justified.  But 
as  God  justifies  sinners  freely  by  his  grace,  through  the  re- 
demption that  is  in  Jesus  Christ,  Jiom.  iii.  24,  so  faith 
alone  is  adapted  to  receive  justification  purely  of  grace  ; 
and  this  the  apostle  clearly  intimates,  when  he  says,  "  There- 
fore it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  by  grace,"  Rom.  iv.  16. 
Here  we  see  that  faith  and  grace  are  in  perfect  unison,  and 
suited  to  each  other.  Faith  magnifies  grace,  and  ascribes 
all  to  it ;  and  grace  admits  nothing  but  faith,  for  both  are 
opposed  to  works.  Grace  and  faith  will  not  mix  or  com- 
pound with  works  in  this  matter.  Men  must  either  be  jus- 
tified wholly  of  works,  or  wholly  of  grace  through  faith  ; 
for  thus  the  apostle  states  the  opposition,  "  If  by  grace,  then 
it  is  no  more  of  works,  otherwise  grace  is  no  more  grace. 
But  if  it  be  of  works,  then  it  is  uo  more  grace  ;  otherwise 


AS    THE    JUSTIFIER    OF    THE    UNGODLY.  95 

work  is  no  more  work,"  Rom.  xi.  6.  From  this  it  appears, 
that  so  far  as  one  takes  place,  the  other  is  annihilated  ;  so 
that  if  works  of  any  kind,  or  upon  any  consideration  what- 
ever, have  place  in  justification,  grace  and  faith,  according 
to  Paul's  idea  of  them,  can  have  none.  Justification,  in 
that  case,  would  be  reckoned  of  works,  not  of  faith  ;  of 
debt,  not  of  grace,  chap.  iv.  4.  And  that  this  is  the  sense, 
is  plain  from  what  he  opposes  to  it,  "  But  to  him  that  worketh 
not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his 
faith  is  counted  for  righteousness,"  ver.  6.  This  is,  indeed, 
a  supernatural  method  of  justification,  very  opposite  to  our 
natural  notions  and  self-righteous  bias ;  and  therefore  we 
need  not  wonder  that  it  hath  met  with  so  much  opposition 
from  the  beginning,  under  the  most  pious  and  specious  pre- 
texts. Nothing  but  a  supernatural  faith,  like  that  of  Abra- 
ham, can  answer  to  it,  or  receive  it ;  and  that  is  the  gift  of 
God. 

I  had  said,  that  "  when  men  include  in  the  very  nature 
of  justifying  faith,  such  good  dispositions,  holy  affections, 
and  pious  exercises  of  heart,  as  the  moral  law  requires,  and 
so  make  them  necessary  (no  matter  under  what  considera- 
tion) to  a  sinner's  acceptance  with  God,  it  perverts  the  apos- 
tle's doctrine  on  this  important  subject,  and  makes  justifi- 
cation to  be  at  least,  as  it  were,  by  the  works  of  the  law." 
Commission,  p.  84. 

To  this  he  answers,  "  That  we  may  judge  whether  this 
assertion  be  well  founded,  it  is  necessary  to  examine  the 
evidence  on  which  it  rests  ;  and  this,  if  I  mistake  not,  is 
confined  to  the  phraseoloiiy  of  a  single  passage  of  Scripture. 
If  this  passage  (namely,  Rom.  iv.  4,  5,)  do  not  prove  the 
point  for  which  it  is  alleged,  I  know  of  no  other  that  does ; 
and,  what  is  more,  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture  teaches  a 
doctrine  directly  opposite."* 

♦  Page  184. 


96  WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

Why  Mr.  Fuller  mentions  the  phraseology  of  Rom.  iv. 
4,  5,  I  know  not,  unless  it  be  to  insinuate  that  it  is  in- 
cautiously or  improperly  expressed,  and  so  not  to  be  under- 
stood according  to  the  most  obvious  and  natural  sense  of  the 
words  ;  though  the  apostle  is  there  arguing  upon  the  sub- 
ject in  the  most  close  and  pointed  manner.  And  it  is  cer- 
tain that  it  must  undergo  a  very  great  change,  both  in  phrase- 
ology and  sense,  before  it  can  please  him,  or  be  accommo- 
dated to  his  scheme.  Yet,  as  Dr.  Owen  says,  "  we  must 
not  forego  this  testimony  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  let  men  be 
as  angry  as  they  please."  But  it  seems  the  evidence  on 
which  I  rest  my  assertion  "^  is  confined  to  this  single  passage 
of  Scripture."  Supposing  this  were  the  case,  as  it  is  not, 
would  not  asingle  passage,  if  it  is  plain,  express,  and  agreeable 
to  the  scope,  be  sufficient  evidence  1  The  truth  is,  in  my  as- 
sertion I  had  no  particular  view  to  this  passage  more  than 
to  many  others,  several  of  which  I  refer  to  at  bottom  of  p. 
83,  84  ;  and  I  may  now  add,  that  all  the  passages  which 
prove — that  there  is  none  righteous,  no  not  one,  but  that  all 
have  sinned  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God — that  no 
flesh  can  be  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law  either  internal 
or  external — that  justification  is  of  free  grace  through  the 
redemption  that  is  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  received  by  faith 
alone — that  grace  and  faith  in  this  matter  are  in  direct  op- 
position to  works,  debt,  or  any  comparative  ground  of  boast- 
ing—  and,  in  short,  every  argument  which  the  apostle 
uses  on  this  head  in  his  epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Gala- 
tians,  all  unite  in  proving  that  sinners  are  justified  by  faith 
only,  and  not  by  the  works  of  the  law.  Consequently  this 
doctrine  is  perverted  when  sinners  are  told  that  they  cannot 
be  justified  till  they  are  previously  possessed  of  such  holy 
afi'ections  and  virtuous  dispositions  of  heart  as  the  moral 
law  (which  is  not  of  faith)  requires.  This  is  what  I  assert, 
and,  in  opposition  to  it.  Mr.  Fuller  asserts,  "  that  the  whole 
tenor  of  Scripture  teaches  a  doctine  directly  opposite  to 


AS    THE    JUSTIFIER    OF    THE    UNGODLY.  97 

this  :"  That  is,  it  teaches  that  sinners  are  justified  not  only 
by  faith,  but  also  by  holy  affections  and  virtuous  dispositions 
of  heart ;  or,  in  other  words,  by  their  holiness  and  con- 
formity to  the  law.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  difference 
betwixt  us  is  very  wide,  and,  considering  the  nature  of  the 
subject,  of  vast  importance.     But  he  proceeds, 

'*  If  by  him  that  worketh  not,  and  the  ungodly  whom 
God  justifieth,  be  meant  persons  who  at  the  time  had  never 
done  any  good  thing  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  who  were  ac- 
tually under  the  dominion  of  enmity  against  him,  Mr.  M.'s 
assertion  will  be  granted  him."* 

It  is  my  opinion,  that  him  that  worketh  not,  means  per- 
sons who  have  never  done  any  good  works  in  the  sight  of 
God,  or  acceptable  to  him,  previous  to  their  believing  and 
being  justified  ;  otherwise  it  would  not  be  true  that  God 
justifieth  the  ungodly;  nor  would  their  believing  on  him  as 
the  justifier  of  such  be  true  faith,  but  the  belief  of  a  false- 
hood. I  have  no  notion  that  the  apostle  means  any  thing 
different,  far  less  contrary,  to  what  he  plainly  says,  as  if  he 
meant  that  God  justifies  the  godly,  though  he  does  it  as  if 
they  were  ungodly.  Such  a  sense  is  not  only  an  addition 
to  the  apostle's  words,  but  flatly  contradicts  them.  On  tiie 
other  hand,  it  never  entered  into  my  heart  to  imagine  that 
him  that  worketh  not,  but  believeth,  is  descriptive  of  those 
who,  from  the  first  moment  of  their  believing,  "  are  actually 
under  the  dominion  of  enmity  against  God."  On  the  con- 
trary,  it  is  my  firm  belief  that  the  persona  here  described 
are  immediately  reconciled  to  God  by  that  which  they  now 
believe,  and  as  soon  as  they  believe.  Therefore  my  asser- 
tion respecting  the  perversion  of  the  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion has  nothing  to  do  with  the  execrable  sentiment  upon 
which  Mr.  Fuller  wishes  to  found  it ;  but  it  is  founded  up- 
on the  following  principles  which  are  intimately  connected 

♦  Page  185. 
9 


98  WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH    REiPEeTS    GOD 

on  this  subject.  1st.  That  belief,  in  its  nature,  is  different 
from  the  works  of  the  law,  whether  these  consist  of  holy  af- 
fections and  virtuous  dispositions  of  heart,  or  outward  ac- 
tions ;  for  the  law  is  not  of  faith.  2iid,  That  believing  on 
him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  is  justifying  faith  ;  for  this 
faith  is  counted  for  righteousness.  3rd.  That  such  a  belief 
is  inconsistent  with  working  in  order  to  be  justified  ;  and, 
4th.  That  every  convicted  sinner,  till  he  thus  believes,  must 
necessarily  work  with  a  view  to  justification,  for  he  can 
have  no  idea  of  obtaining  it  in  any  other  way.  If,  therefore^ 
Mr.  Fuller  would  disprove  my  assertion,  he  must  either  re- 
fute these  principles,  or  show  that  the  doctrine  I  oppose  is 
consistent  with  them. 

But  it  will  be  proper  to  set  before  the  reader  at  once  Mr. 
Fuller's  view  of  Rom.  iv.  4,  6,  which  amounts  shortly  to  this. 

That  ''by  him  that  worketh  not,  and  the  ungodly  whom 
God  justifieth,  is  not  meant  persons  who,"  previous  to  their 
justification,  and  ''at  the  time,  had  never  done  any  good 
thing  in  the  sight  of  God,  but  were  actually  under  the  do- 
minion of  enmity  against  him ;  for  the  apostle  is  speaking 
of  believers.  He  that  worketh  not  is  at  the  same  time  said 
to  believe ;  but  whenever  this  can  be  said  of  a  man,  it  can- 
not with  truth  be  affirmed  of  him  that  he  has  done  nothing 
good  in  the  sight  of  God,  or  that  he  is  under  the  dominion 
of  enmity  against  him,  and  has  actually  wrought  nothing 
for  God.  Holiness  may  precede  justification  as  to  time, 
and  it  may  be  necessary,  on  some  account,  that  it  should 
precede  it,  and  yet  have  no  causal  influence  upon  it. 
If  antecedent  holiness  destroy  the  freeness  of  grace,  I 
know  of  no  solid  reason  why  consequent  holiness  should 
not  operate  in  the  same  way ;  and  then,  in  order  to 
be  justified  by  grace,  it  will  be  necessary  to  continue  the  en- 
emies of  God  through  life."  But,  whatever  degree  of  holi- 
ness, previous  to  his  justification,  it  may  be  necessary  for 
him  to  possess,  however  much  he  may  have  wrought  for  God, 


AS    THE    JUSTIFIER    OF    THE    UNGODLY.  99 

and  whatever  good  he  may  have  done  in  his  sight ;  yet  "  he 
worketh  not  with  respect  to  justification,  but  in  all  his  deal- 
ings with  God  for  acceptance,  comes  not  as  righteous,  but 
as  ungodly.  So  that  the  character  described  by  the  apostle 
is  not  merely  applicable  to  a  Christian  at  the  first  moment 
of  his  believing,  but  through  the  whole  of  life.  We  have 
to  deal  with  Christ  for  pardon  and  justification  more  than 
once  ;  and  must  always  go  to  him  as  working  not,  but  be- 
lieving on  him  that  justifieththe  ungodly."  And  this  sense 
of  the  passage,  he  thinks,  is  decisively  proved  by  "  the  ex- 
amples  which  the  apostle  refers  to  for  the  illustration  of  his 
doctrine,  namely,  Abraham  and  David,"  who  were  both  holy 
men  many  years  before  they  are  said  to  be  justified.* 

On  this  view  of  the  passage  I  shall  make  a  few  remarks, 
and  then  give  the  sense  in  which  I  understand  it. 

First,  There  are  several  things  here  stated  which  are  not 
disputed  by  me,  but  agree  well  with  my  view  of  the  passage, 

*  Page  180,  185,  186, 187,  188.  This  is  exactly  Mr.  Hopkins's  doc- 
trine of  justification,  and  of  the  antecedent  holiness  necessary  to  iL 
According  to  him,  a  person  must  not  only  be  convinced  of  his  guilt, 
and  the  just  condemnation  due  to  it ;  but  he  muit  have  the  true  know- 
ledge of  God,  and  a  new  heart,  a  humble,  penitent,  and  contrite  heart 
to  hate  sin  as  such,  and  to  love  God  and  delight  in  his  law  ;  and  all 
this  not  only  previous  to  his  justification,  and  in  order  to  it,  but  even 
previous  to  his  knowledge  of  the  Mediator  and  faith  in  him.  And 
he  scruples  not  to  affirm,  that  those  "  who  have  never  been  reconciled 
to  God  and  his  holy  law  in  any  other  way,  but  by  first  seeing  and  be- 
lieving in  the  grace  of  God  through  Christ,  are  yet  ignorant  of  the 
true  grace  of  God,  and  enemies  to  it."  Two  Discourses,  page  24, 
25,  note.  Mr.  Booth,  in  his  Glad  Tidings,  has  made  some  very  just 
animadversions  on  this  author's  sentiments.  Mr.  T.  Scott  has  also 
made  a  few  but  very  pertinent  remarks  on  the  distinguishing  tenet."? 
of  the  American  divines,  and  particularly  alludes  to  Hopkins,  when 
he  says,  "they  have  certainly  advanced  positions  which  obscure  the 
glory  of  the  gospel,  and  embarrass  the  minds  of  inquirers  with  many 
unscriptural  distinctions." — The  Warrant  and  Nature  of  Faith  ia 
Christ,  page  3,  4- 


100         WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

as — 1.  It  is  not  denied  that  the  apostle  is  here  speaking  of 
believers.  I  have  no  notion  that  any  are  justified  till  they 
believe,  though  I  consider  their  believing  and  justification 
to  be  coeval. — 2.  Nor  is  it  denied  that  believing  is  a  good 
thing.  It  is  an  effect  of  the  regenerating  influence  of  the 
Spirit  and  word  of  God,  and  the  principle  of  all  holy  affec- 
tions and  good  dispositions,  though  in  justification  it  is  dis- 
tinguished irom  them  ;  and  therefore,  when  I  deny  that  holy 
dispositions  or  good  works  are  required  as  necessary  to  jus- 
tification, I  surely  do  not  mean  to  deny  that  faith  itself  is 
necessary  to  it. — 3.  Far  less  do  I  affirm  (as  Mr.  Fuller 
would  have  me,)  that  a  person  who  believes  is  still  "actual, 
ly  under  the  dominion  of  enmity  against  God;"  on  the  con- 
trary, I  maintain,  that  what  he  believes  instantly  removes 
the  enmity  of  his  heart  and  reconciles  him  to  God,  exciting 
love  to  him  and  hatred  of  sin. — 4.  It  is  admitted  that  he 
that  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  worketh 
not  with  respect  to  justification,  either  at  the  first  moment 
of  his  believing,  or  (if  he  continues  in  the  faith)  through 
his  whole  life  after ;  for  that  would  be  inconsistent  with 
such  a  belief. — 5.  It  is  also  admitted  that  a  believer  needs 
pardon,  not  only  for  the  sins  of  his  past  life  when  he  first 
believes,  but  a  continued  exercise  of  pardoning  mercy  for 
the  sins  he  commits  afterwards  during  the  whole  course  of 
his  pilgrimage  in  this  world.  Hence  believers  are  exhorted 
to  repent  of  their  sins,  to  confess  them,  and  to  come  to  the 
throne  of  grace  that  they  may  obtain  mercy,  which  is  pro- 
mised to  them  through  the  attonement  and  intercession  of 
Christ,  Heb.  iv.  16,  1  John  i.  7,  chap,  ii.  1,  2.  But  I  ob- 
serve. 

Secondly,  That  Mr.  Fuller  explains  the  term  {affsprjs) 
UNGODLY,  in  this  passage,  to  mean  only  the  godly,  and 
none  else  ;  for  he  represents  them  as  persons  who  have  la- 
bored and  wrought  for  God,  and  done  good  in  his  sight 
previous  to  their  justification  ;  and  affirms,  that  "  holiness 


AS    THE    JUSTIFIER    OF    THE    UNGODLY.  101 

may  precede  justification  as  to  time,  and  that  it  may  be  ne- 
cessary on  some  accounts  that  it  should  precede  it."  In. 
short,  he  would  have  us  to  believe  that  the  apostle  uses  this 
term  in  a  sense  quite  opposite  to  its  usual  meaning,  and 
such  as  will  fitly  apply  to  the  most  godly  saint  on  earth  ;  for 
he  maintains  that  "  the  character  described  by  the  apostle  is 
not  merely  applicable  to  a  Christian  at  the  first  moment  of 
his  believing,  but  through  the  whole  of  life."  I  suppose  he 
will  admit  there  are  some  godly  characters  in  the  world,  and 
that  he  would  not  reckon  them  properly  characterized  by 
any  author  who  should  term  them  the  ungodly  ;  nay,  though 
he  should  add  the  opposite  character  to  it,  and  call  them  un- 
godly godly  persons,  which  comes  nearer  the  character  he 
has  in  view :  Why,  then,  does  he  attribute  such  a  glaring 
impropriety  of  speech  to  the  inspired  apostle,  who  is  argu- 
ing closely  upon  the  most  important  subject  1  The  word 
ungodly  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  I  believe,  seven  or 
eight  times,  and  the  word  ungodliness,  about  six  ;  but  nei- 
ther of  them  are  ever  used  to  characterize  persons  actually 
converted,  but  the  very  reverse ;  and  therefore  it  would  be 
strange  beyond  all  example,  if  the  apostle  had  used  it  here 
in  a  sense  altogether  opposite  to  its  usual  acceptation. 

Mr.  Fuller,  however,  ventures  to  produce  another  passage 
where  the  word  ungodly  signifies  the  godly,  viz.  Rom.  v.  6, 
"  Christ  is  said  to  have  died  for  the  ungodly.  Did  he  then 
lay  down  his  life  only  for  those  who  at  the  time  were  ac- 
tually his  enemies?  If  so,  he  did  not  die  for  any  of  the 
Old  Testament  saints ;  nor  for  any  of  the  godly  who  were 
then  alive  ;  not  even  for  his  own  apostles."*  According  to 
this,  Christ  could  not  have  died  only  for  the  ungodly  or  his 
enemies,  unless  he  has  died  before  there  were  any  saints 
upon  earth  !  But  it  is  plain,  beyond  all  dispute,  that  the 
word  ungodly  in  this  passage  has  not  the  least  reference  to 

♦  Page  188. 
9'' 


102         WHETHER   JUSTIFYING    FAlTH    RESPECTS    GOD 

any  as  godly  ;  and  though  it  may  include  all  the  saints  both 
before  and  at  the  time   of  Christ's   death ;  yet   it  respects 
none  of  them  as  saints,  but  is  expressive  of  their  former  ir- 
regenerate   state,  wlierein  they  are  classed  with  all  the  rest 
of  the  ungodly   for   whom  Christ   died,  and  so  are  strictly 
and  properly  termed  such,  as  having  been  really  ungodly, 
enemies,  and  children  of  wrath,  even  as  others.     The  apos- 
tle is  writing  to   Christians,  among  whom  he  includes  him- 
self; and,  to  set  forth  the  exceeding  greatness  of  the  love  of 
God  towards  them,  he  brings  to  view  their  former  state  and 
character  as  being  without  strength,  ungodly,  sinners,  ene- 
mies ;  and  so  he  expresses  himself  not  in  the  present,  but 
past  tense,  thus,  "  When  we  were  yet  without  strength  in 
due  time   Christ  died  for  the  ungodly. — While  we  were 
YET  sinners  Christ  died  for  us. — If  when  we  were  ene- 
mies, we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son," 
&c.  ver.  6,  8,  10.     This  passage,  therefore,  makes  nothing 
for  Mr.  Fuller's   purpose,  but  proves,  on  the  contrary,  that 
Christ  died  for  such  as  in  the  strictest  sense  were  ungodly, 
even  as  ch.  iv.  5,   proves  that  God  is  the  justifier  of  such, 
and  that  justifying  faith  is  a  believing  on  him  under  that 
character. 

Thirdly,  Mr.  Fuller  thinks  it  makes  no  diiference  as  to 
the  freeiiess  of  grace  in  justification,  whether  holiness  be 
required  in  order  of  time  before  it,  or  after  it ;  for  he  says, 
"If  antecedent  holiness  destroy  the  freeness  of  grace,  I 
know  of  no  solid  reason  why  consequent  holiness  should 
not  operate  in  the  same  way. — It  is  not  the  priority  of  time 
that  makes  any  difference,  but  that  of  causation."  So  that, 
according  to  him,  it  makes  no  difference  whether  holiness 
be  required  before  justification  or  after  it ;  if  holiness  is  not 
the  cause  of  justification,  grace  is  equally  free  in  both  cases. 
But  Paul  was  of  a  very  different  mind,  who,  in  setting  forth 
the  freeness  of  grace  in  election,  redemption,  and  justifica- 
tion, lays  a  great  deal  of  stress  upon  its  priority  in  order  of 


A3    THE    JUSTIFIER    OF    THE    UNGODLY.  103 

time  to  any  holiness  in  us,  and  by  this  he  demonstrates  that 
no  holiness   or  works   of  ours  can  possibly  be  the  cause. 
He  represents   election  as  prior  not  only  to  our  existence, 
but  to  the  creation  of  the   world,  to  show  that  it  is  entirely 
of  grace,  and  not  of  our  works  or  holiness  ;   and  illustrates 
the  freedom  and  sovereignty  of  grace  in   it   by  the  distinc- 
tion made  between  Esau  and  Jacob,  while  as  yet  they  were 
not  born,    or  had  done  any  good  or  evil  previous  to  the  re- 
velation of  the  divine  purpose  respecting  them,  Eph.  i.  4. 
Rom.   xi.  5,  6,  chap.  ix.  11 — 14.     With  the  same  view  he 
represents  the  death   of  Christ  as  prior  to  any  holiness,  at 
least  either   in  himself  or  those  he   writes  to  ;  and  that  it 
was  when  they  were  yet  without  strength,  ungodly,  sinners, 
and  enemies  that  he  died  for  them,  Rom.  v.  6 — 11.     With 
regard  to  justification,  he  takes  pains  to  show  that  Abraham 
was  justified  by  faith  in  God's  promise  before  he  was  pos- 
sessed of  that  holiness,  or  had  done   any  of  those  works 
which  the  Judaizers  made  necessary  to  it,  and  while  he  was 
only  an  uncircumcised  Gentile,  Rom.  iv.  9 — 13.     He  also 
founds   an    argument   upon    the  priority    of  the   promise, 
(which  includes  the  Gentiles,)  to  the  giving  of  the  law  of 
Moses,  to  show  that  the  blessing  freely  promised  is  not  ob- 
tained by  men's  holiness  or  works,  but  purely  by  faith  that 
it  might  be  by  grace,  and  so  sure  to  all  Abraham's  spiritual 
seed  both  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  Rom.  iv.  13 — 17.  Gal. 
iii.   8,  9,  17,  18.     Further,  he  takes   notice  of  the  Lord's 
words  in  Isaiah,  "  I  was  found  of  them  that  sought  me  not ; 
I  was  made  manifest  unto   them  that  asked  not  after  me," 
Rom.  X,  20,  which  exclude  men's  holiness  not  only  as  the 
cause,  but  as  antecedent  to  the  blessing  here  promised.  And 
this  corresponds  with  the  Scripture  instances  of  God's  be- 
ing found  of,  and  made  manifest  to  guilty  sinners  ;  for  what 
holiness  had  Mary  Magdelene,  Zaccheus,  the  thief  on  the 
cross,  the  three  thousand  converted  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
Saul  the  persecutor,  the  Philippian  jailor,  or,  in  short,  anv 


104  WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

of  all  the  idolatrous  Gentiles,  previous  to  their  believing  the 
gospel  1 

But  I  must  further  observe,  that  when  holiness  (under 
whatever  consideration)  is  required  of  a  sinner  previous,  or 
in  order  to  his  being  justified,  justification  cannot  appear  to 
him  to  be  of  free  grace  through  faith  as  opposed  to  works. 
He  indeed  may  admit  that  any  holiness  in  him  cannot 
merit  justification,  and  that  in  this  respect  he  can  only  be 
justified  through  the  righteousness  of  Christ ;  but  still  he 
must  look  upon  this  antecedent  holiness  as  coming  betwixt 
him  and  Christ,  and  as  absolutely  necessary  to  his  obtain- 
ing an  interest  in  Christ's  righteousness  and  justification 
by  it.  He  must  necessarily  view  justification  as  suspended 
upon  his  possessing  this  antecedent  holiness,  and  so  con- 
sider it  as  the  condition  on  which  he  is  to  be  justified,  which 
must  have  the  same  effect  upon  his  mind  as  if  he  were  to 
be  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law.  And  if  he  is  really 
concerned  about  the  salvation  of  his  soul,  this  antecedent 
holiness  will  engage  his  attention  first  of  all,  and  lead  him 
to  strive  and  pray  that  he  may  possess  it  in  order  to  his  ob- 
taining justification.  So  that,  while  he  has  this  view  of  the 
matter,  he  must  necessarily  be  following  after  righteousness, 
or  seeking  to  obtain  justification  as  it  were  by  the  works  of 
tlie  law,  or  by  a  kind  of  antecedent  holiness,  which,  though 
it  may  go  under  another  name,  yet,  when  made  necessary  to 
his  justification,  differs  nothing  in  its  nature  and  tendency, 
for  words  cannot  alter  the  nature  of  things.  In  short,  while 
he  considers  this  antecedent  holiness  as  necessary  to  his 
justification,  he  can  have  no  idea  that  God  justifieth  the 
ungodly,  nor  can  he  believe  on  him  under  that  character. 

Fourthly,  Though  Mr.  Fuller  pleads  for  the  necessity  of 
holiness  antecedent  to  justification,  (when  the  sinner  must 
be  supposed  without  any  actual  union  with  Christ,  and  so 
in  a  state  of  condemnation,  as  all  arc  till  they  are  justified)  ; 
yet  he  also  maintains  that  whatever  previous  holiness  may 


AS    THE    JUSTIFIER    OF    THE    UNGODLY.  105 

be  required  of  a  sinner,  and  sought  after  by  him  as  neces- 
sary to  his  being  justified,  "he  vvorketh  not  with  respect  to 
justification,  but  in  all  his  dealings  with  God  for  accept- 
ance, comes  not  as  righteous,  but  as  ungodly."  But  it  is 
most  evident,  that  if  an  awakened  sinner  believes  that  he 
cannot  be  justified  without  antecedent  holiness,  he  must  of 
necessity  work  to  obtain  that  holiness  in  order  to  his  being 
justified,  and  so  have  a  respect  to  justification  in  his  work- 
ing. He  may,  indeed,  apply  to  God  while  he  views  himself 
as  an  ungodly  sinner  ;  but  it  is  to  obtain  this  previous  holi- 
ness that  he  may  be  justified,  and  his  aim  in  all  his  reli- 
gious exercises  and  dealings  with  God  must  have  this  for 
its  object ;  because  the  very  nature  of  such  a  principle  pre- 
cludes the  idea  that  he  can  be  justified  as  a  mere  sinner,  or 
while  he  views  himself  as  such,  and  so  is  inconsistent  with 
his  believing  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly. 

Fifthly,  Mr.  Fuller  imagines,  that  if  men  admit  what  he 
calls  the  grand  principle  on  which  the  apostle  rests  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  by  grace,  viz.  It  is  written.  Cursed  is 
every  one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  written  in 
the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them.  Gal.  iii.  10  ;  and  if  they  al- 
so admit  that  the  righteousness  of  Clirist,  and  not  their 
own  personal  holiness,  is  the  procuring  cause  of  justifica- 
tion,* this  will  sufficiently  guard  the  freeness  of  grace  in 
justification,  whatever  antecedent  holiness  may  be  required 
of  men,  or  sought  after  by  them  in  order  to  obtain  it.  But 
I  apprehend  this  is  a  very  great  mistake.  True,  indeed,  such 
as  are  thoroughly  convinced  that  they  have  actually  incur- 
red and  justly  deserve  the  curse  of  the  divine  law — that 
they  cannot  possibly  deliver  themselves  from  that  curse  by 
any  supposed  doing,  exercise,  or  holiness  of  theirs,  perform- 
ed in  their  own  strength  or  by  any  assistance  whatever — 
that  the  only  work  by  which  redemption  from   this   curse  is 

*  Page  179,  180. 


108       WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

which  they  include  every  virtuous  and  holy  disposition  of 
heart  as  necessary  to  justification.  The  former  paid  no  re- 
gard to  Paul's  authority  as  an  inspired  apostle,  but  avowed- 
ly contradicted  him  :  but  the  latter  admit  the  inspiration 
of  the  apostle,  and  contradict  him  only  in  their  method  of 
explaining  his  words.  Both,  however,  agree  in  this,  that 
God  does  not  justify  the  ungodly. 

Sixthly,  Mr.  Fuller  affirms  "that  the  character  described 
by  the  apostle,"  namely,  the  ungodly,  "  is  not  merely  appli- 
cable to  a  Christian  at  the  moment  of  his  believing,  but 
through  the  whole  of  life.  We  have  to  deal  with  Christ  for 
pardon  and  justification  more  than  once,  and  must  always 
go  to  him  as  working  not,  but  believing  on  him  that  justi- 
fieth  the  ungodly."  But  the  apostle  does  not  say  that  the 
person  who  worketh  not,  but  believeth,  is  ungodly,  far  less 
that  such  a  character  is  applicable  to  a  Christian  through 
the  whole  of  life.  This  is  a  glaring  misconstruction  of  the 
apostle's  meaning,  and  contrary  to  the  whole  tenor  of 
Scripture.  The  apostle  does  not  use  the  word  ungodly  to 
describe  the  existing  character  of  an  actual  believer  ;*  but 

♦  It  may  well  excite  surprise  and  regret  that  Mr.  M'Lean  should 
have  been  betrayed  into  such  an  inconsistency  as  is  involved  in  the 
denial  that  God  justifies  those  who  are  in  a  state  of  enmity  against 
Him — a  sentiment  equally  inconsistent  with  the  Scriptures  and  with  the 
whole  scope  of  his  own  performance.  Tlie  same  sentiment  is  ad- 
vanced in  two  other  passages,  and  in  each  of  them  the  reason  assigned 
is  such  as  almost  to  justify  the  idea  that  the  writer  meant  to  deny 
something  very  different  from  what  his  words  express.  On  page  37 
it  is  said  "I  indeed  afHrm,  &.c.  Yet  I  never  supposed  that  any,  from 
the  moment  of  their  thus  believing,  are  in  a  state  of  enmity  against 
God,  or  that  God  justifies  them  while  in  that  state."  And  on  page  — ■ 
it  is  said,  "Far  less  do  I  affirm,  as  Mr.  Fuller  would  have  me,  that  a 
person  who  believes  is  still  actually  under  the  dominion  of  enmity 
against  God  :  on  the  contrary,  I  maintain  that  what  he  believes,  in- 
stantly removes  the  enmity  of  his  heart,  and  reconciles  him  to  God, 
exciting  love  to  Him  and  hatred  of  sin,"  Here  we  have  the  instant 
and  sure  effect  of  the  truth  in  reconciling  the  heart  to  God,  adduced  as 


•  AS    THE    JUSTIFYER    Of    THE    UNGODLY.  109 

brings  it  in  under  a  description  of  his  faith  in  God  :  He  is 
one  who  "believethon  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly." 
Should  we  search  the  Scriptures  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end,  we  shall  nowhere  find  the  word  ungodly  used  to  de- 
scribe the  existing  character  of  real  believers  in  God, 
though  it  is  twice  used  to  describe  their  former  state  and 
character.  It  is  therefore  very  strange  that  Mr.  Fuller 
should  put  such  an  unnatural  sense  upon  the  word  in  this 
passage,  as  it  bears  nowhere  else  in  all  the  word  of  God  ; 
and  it  is  no  less  so,  that  he  should  fix  the  character  of  un- 
godly upon  real  believers  through  the  whole  of  life  after 
their  justification,  in  order  to  prove  that  they  were  holy  or 
godly  prior  to  it ! 

In  support  of  these  contradictory  notions,  he  finds  it 
necessary  to  advance  another  strange  sentiment,  namely, 
"That  we  have  to  deal  with  Christ  for  justification  more 
than  once."  I  have  reason  to  think  that  Mr.  Fuller's  view 
of  justification  is  pretty  singular,  and  that  he  does  not  con- 


proof  that  God  does  not  justify  his  enemies.  But  are  we  to  rcard 
Mr.  M'Lean  as  here  affirming  that  faith  and  its  effects  are  coeval,  or 
that  God  justifies  men  not  as  believers,  but  as  bringing  forth  the  fruits 
of  faith'?  If  he  affirms  neither  of  these,  how  can  he  deny  that  God 
justifies  men  in  a  state  of  enmity  to  him  ?  If  what  he  believes  slay 
the  enmity  of  the  sinner's  heart,  and  he  is  justified  as  a  believer 
surely  he  is  justified  while  stout-hearted  against  God,  and  in  arms 
against  him.  If,  as  is  here  said,  the  term  ungodly  do  not  describe  the 
existing  character  of  an  actual  believer,  how  does  it  appear  that  God 
justifies  the  ungpdly  '?  for  it  is  the  believer  whom  he  justifies — and  not 
rather  one  who  was  once  ungodly,  but  who  at  the  moment  of  his  jus- 
tification has  lost  that  character.  But  Mr.  M'Lean  has  himself 
proved  at  length  that  the  term  ungodly  is  never  applied  in  the  Scrip- 
tures to  those  who  love  God,  and  are  reconciled  to  him:  As  this  er- 
ror is  one  which  forms  no  part  of  that  truth  for  which  Mr.  M'Lean 
contends,  but  is,  on  the  contrary,  clearly  inconsistent  with,  and  subver- 
sireof  it,  it  is  hoped  that  the  reader  will  thus  regard  it,  and  so  dis- 
criminate between  the  errors  and  inconsistencies  of  the  writer  and  the 
consistent  and  immutable  truth  which  he  labors  to  defend.    Ed. 

10 


110         WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

sider  it  as  any  specific  act  of  God  at  all,  but  only  the  uni-» 
form  declarations  of  the  word  of  God,  (the  statute-book  of 
heaven,)  as  to  what  characters  are  exempted  from  the  curse 
of  the  law,  and  entitled  to  everlasting  life.  Nor  does  he 
consider  it  as  a  blessing  conferred  at  once  :  "  Justification," 
he  says,  *^  is  not  of  so  transient  a  nature  as  to  be  begun 
and  ended  in  an  instant — It  is  described  in  language  which 
is  expressive  of  its  continuity — It  is  God  that  justifieth  ; 
who  is  he  that  condemneth?  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son 
hath  everlasting  life — Hence  also  believers  in  every  stage  of 
life  deal  with  Christ  for  justification,  desiring  nothing  more  than 
that  they  may  be  found  in  him,  not  having  their  own  right- 
eousness, which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is  through  the 
faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  wliich  is  of  God  by  faith."* 
Now,  if  it  is  a  truth  that  justification  is  carried  on  through 
every  stage  of  a  believei*'s  life,  it  will  indeed  follow  that 
he  must  bear  the  character  of  ungodly  unto  the  end,  as  he 
is  not  completely  freed  from  condemnation,  nor  perfectly 
justified  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  any  more  than  he 
is  perfectly  sanctified  while  in  this  world.  But  is  this  Paul's 
doctrine  of  justification  ?  Far  from  it.  The  passages  he 
refers  to  are  nothing  to  his  purpose.  I  need  not  show  this 
as  to  Rom.  viii.  3.3,  and  John  iii.  36,  the  reader  will  per- 
ceive it  at  once;  and  as  to  Phil.  iii.  8 — 15,  Paul  does  not 
there  represent  himself  as  dealing  with  Christ  for  justifica- 
tion, as  if  he  had  not  yet  obtained  mercy,  or  an  acquittal 
from  the  sentence  of  condemnation,  or  as  laboring  to  obtain 
that  justification  which  is  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  be- 
lieveth :  but  he  is  guarding  the  Philippians  against  tlie  in- 
fluence of  the  Jews  or  Judaizing  teachers,  by  opposing 
his  example  to  theirs,  in  his  setting  at  nought  all  his  own 
legal  righteousness  in  which  he  formerly  boasted,  and  count- 

♦  See  Gaius's  paper  in  the  Protestant   Dissenter's  Magazine  for 
April,  1799,  p.  145. 


AS    THE    JUSTIFIER    OF    THE    UNGODLY.  Ill 

hig  it  but  as  loss  and  dung  in  comparison  of  the  excellen- 
cy of  the  knowledge  of  Chirst  Jesus  his  Lord,  and  of  his 
being  found  in  him,  having  the  righteousness  which  is  of 
God  by  faith,  as  opposed  to  works.  With  this  view  he  also 
sets  his  example  before  the  Galatians,  (chap.  ii.  18,  19,  20, 
21.  chap.  vi.  13,  14,)  not  as  laboring  for  justification,  but 
living  by  it.  In  like  manner  he  also  sets  before  the  Philip- 
pians  how  earnestly  he  pressed  after  conformity  to  Christ, 
and  pursued  the  Christian  race,  that  he  might  at  last  obtain 
the  prize  of  the  high  calling  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus,  or  the 
crown  of  righteousness  and  glory  which  fadeth  not  away. 
See  2  Tim.  iv.  7,  8.  1  Pet.  v.  4.  Thus,  being  alreadyjus- 
tified  by  faith,  he  labored  that  he  might  be  accepted,  approv- 
ed and  rewarded  at  last  as  a  faithful  servant  of  Jesus  Christ, 
2  Cor.  v.  9,  10.  A  proper  view  of  this  would  remove  any 
apparent  difficulty  in  reconciling  Paul  and  James  on  this 
subject ;  compare  Rom.  iii.  28,  with  James  ii.  24.  But  I 
must  not  enter  upon  this  at  present. 

.  Had  Mr.  Fuller  only  affirmed  that  believers  have  the  re- 
mains  of  a  corrupt  nature  in  them,  and  are  daily  sinning 
while  in  this  world;  that  they  have  constant  cause  to  be 
humbled  on  that  account  before  God,  to  confess  their  sins, 
and  pray  to  their  Heavenly  Father  that  they  may  obtain 
mercy  through  the  atonement  and  intercession  of  Christ, 
(Matt.  vi.  12;  1  John  i.  7,  8,  9 ;  Heb.  iv.  16,)  or  had  he 
affirmed  that  pardon  does  not  respect  them  as  godly,  but 
as  guilty,  and  that,  as  such,  they  must  always  apply  for  it,  1 
should  have  most  heartily  agreed  to  all  this :  but  to  affirm 
that  believers  are  characterized  in  Scripture  as  ungodly 
through  the  whole  of  life,  and  that  they  are  not  completely 
justified  at  once  when  they  believe  in  Christ,  appears  to  me 
a  very  unscriptural  view  of  this  important  subject.  Our 
Lord  says,  "  He  that  heareth  my  words,  and  believeth  on 
him  that  sent  me,  hath  everlasting  life,  and  shall  not  come 


112         WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

into  condemnation  ;  but  is  passed  from  death  unto  life," 
John  V.  24.  Paul  declares,  that  "  by  him  all  that  believe 
ARE  JUSTIFIED  from  all  things,"  Acts  xiii.  39,  and  that 
'^ there  is  now  no  condemnation  to  them  who  are  in  Christ 
Jesus,"  Rom.  viii.  1.  Justification  is  a  change  of  the  sin- 
ner's state  ;  for  hereby  he  passes  from  a  state  of  guilt,  con- 
demnation, and  death,  into  a  state  of  pardon,  acceptance, 
life  and  peace  with  God ;  and  this  change  of  state  is  always 
represented  as  taking  place  at  once  when  men  believe  the 
gospel.  A  person  must  either  be  in  a  state  of  justification 
or  condemnation,  for  there  is  no  middle  state ;  and  as  the 
righteousness  of  God  which  is  by  the  faith  of  Christ,  is  un- 
to all  and  upon  all  them  that  believe,  so  they  must  be  per- 
fectly justified  from  all  things,  and  accepted  in  the  Beloved, 
though  the  privileges  and  blessings  pertaining  to  this  justi- 
fied state  continue  to  be  dispensed  according  to  the  believ- 
er's need.  But  I  need  not  insist  on  this,  as  Mr.  Fuller,  not- 
withstanding what  he  says  above,  admits  "  that  we  are  intro- 
duced into  this  blessed  state  at  the  moment  of  our  believing. 
From  that  instant  we  are  no  more  under  the  law,  but  under 
grace.  The  curses  of  the  former  stand  no  longer  against 
us,  and  the  blessings  of  the  latter  become  our  portion." 

Lastly,  He  produces  the  examples  to  which  the  apostle 
refers  for  the  illustration  of  his  doctrine,  viz.  Abraham  and 
David,  which  he  thinks  are  decisive  of  the  question.  On 
the  former  he  observes,  that  "  if  Abraham  at  the  time  he  is 
said  to  have  believed  God,  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for. 
righteousness,  had  never  done  any  good  thing,  and  was  ac- 
tually the  enemy  of  God,  Mr.  M's  position  is  established  ; 
but  if  the  contrary  is  true,  it  is  overturned ;"  and  then  he 
adduces  Gen,  xii.  1,  Heb.  xi.  S,  to  prove  that  he  was  a  be* 
liever  several  years  before  he  is  said  to  be  justified  in  Gen. 
XV.  6. 

If  Abraham  was  a  believer  several  years  before  he  was 


AS    THE    JUSTIFIER   OF    THE    UNGODLY,  113 

justified,  it  will  indeed  serve  to  illustrate  Mr.  Fuller's  doc- 
trine respecting  the  necessity  of  antecedent  holiness ;  but 
then  it  must  be  observed  that  the  apostle  does  not  produce 
this  part  of  Abraham's  example,  or  make  the  least  mention 
of  it  for  the  illustration  of  his  doctrine,  nor  does  it  appear 
that  it  would  have  suited  his  purpose  in  arguing  with  Juda- 
izers.  Hence  there  is  ground  to  suspect  that  the  apostle's 
doctrine  is  not  exactly  the  same  with  Mr.  Fuller's  on  this 
head.  Indeed,  if  it  can  be  shown  that  the  faith  whereby 
Abraham  was  justified  included  a  previous  course  of  holi- 
ness for  several  years,  I  am  apprehensive  that  it  will  not 
only  overturn  my  position,  which  is  a  small  matter,  but  also 
the  whole  scope  of  the  apostle's  reasoning  on  this  subject. 

As  Mr.  Fuller  has  misquoted  my  words,  and  also  repre- 
sented me  as  maintaining  that  Abraham  was  justified  while 
he  was  actually  the  enemy  of  God,  the  reader  will  observe 
that  the  position  which  he  combats  is  this,  viz.  "  When  men 
include  in  the  very  nature  of  justifying  faith  such  good  dis- 
positions, holy  affections,  and  pious  exercises  of  heart 
as  the  moral  law  requires,  and  so  make  them  necessary  to  a 
sinner's  acceptance  with  God,  they  pervert  the  apostle's  doc- 
trine upon  this  important  subject."  Commission,  p.  S4. 
In  this  position  I  suppose  that  sinners  are  justified  by  taith 
only,  as  opposed  to  works — that  holy  dispositions,  affec 
tions,  and  exercises  are  internal  works  of  the  law,  and  ef- 
fects of  faith — that  to  include  these  in  the  nature  of  faith  as 
it  justifies,  is  to  give  the  same  place  to  them  in  justification 
as  to  faith  itself,  and  so  to  pervert  the  apostle's  doctrine, 
who,  from  the  whole  of  his  premises  on  the  subject,  draws 
this  conclusion,  "  That  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  without 
the  deeds  of  the  law,"  Rom.  iii.  28. 

Now,  in  opposition  to  this,  Mr.  Fuller  aftlrms  That 
the  property  of  working  by  love  is  not  only  an  immediate 
and  inseparable  efTect  of  faith,  but  belongs  to  its  nature  as 
justifying,  and  that,  as  thus  working,  it  is  necessary  to  justi- 

10* 


114        WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

fication.*  That  those  who  are  described  as  working  not, 
and  as  the  ungodly,  whom  God  justifieth,  are  really  persons 
of  an  opposite  character  to  what  the  words  plainly  express ; 
but  that  they  are  represented  as  ungodly,  and  as  not  work- 
ing, because,  however  godly  they  are,  and  however  much 
they  have  wrought  tor  God  during  a  series  of  years  previ- 
ous to  their  being  justified,  yet  they  work  not  with  respect 
to  justification,  but  in  all  their  dealings  with  God  for  accept- 
ance, come  not  as  righteous,  but  as  ungodly.  And  this 
sense  of  the  words,  he  thinks,  is  supported  by  that  part  of 
Abraham  and  David's  example  which  the  apostle  has  thought 
proper  to  omit.|  Thus  he  overturns  my  position,  by  re- 
versing the  plain  sense  of  the  apostle's  words,  making  the 
ungodly  to  be  the  godly,  who  have  a  humble  opinion  of  their 
own  character,  and  their  working  for  God  during  a  series 
of  years  previous  to  their  justification,  to  be  notwithstand- 
ing their  not  working  with  respect  to  it !  By  the  same  rule 
of  interpretation  he  might  have  told  us,  that  those  who  trust 
in  their  own  righteousness  for  justification  are  godly,  be- 
cause they  imagine  themselves  to  be  so,  and  in  all  their 
dealings  with  God  for  acceptance,  come  not  as  sinners,  but 
as  godly  ;  and  though  they  are  real  workers  of  iniquity,  it 
may,  however,  be  truly  affirmed  of  them,  that  they  work  it 
not,  because  they  do  not  work  it  with  a  view  of  being 
either  justified  or  condemned  for  it. 

But  it  is  time  to  return  to  the  example  of  Abraham  and 
David.  Let  it  then  be  observed,  that  the  great  apostle  of 
the  Gentiles  is  establishing  the  doctrine  of  free  justification 
by  faith  without  works  ;  and  though  his  argument  excludes 
all  works  of  every  kind  in  obedience  to  any  law  whatever, 
whether  moral  or  positive,  yet  he  has  a  particular  view  to  the 
state  of  the  controversy  as  carried  on  between  him  and  the 
Jews  or  Judaizing  teachers  of  his  time.     They  maintained 

♦  Page  183, 184.  t  Page  185,  187. 


AS    THE    JUSTIFIER    OF    THE    UNGODLY.  115 

that  except  men  were  circumcised  and  kept  the  law  of 
Moses,  th*^/  could  not  be  saved,  Acts  xv.  1,  6.  Gal.  vi.  12, 
13.  In  opposition  to  this  he  shows  that  some  of"  the  best 
and  most  respected  characters  among  their  ancestors,  and 
who  had  been  remarkably  distinguished  as  the  favorites  of 
Heaven,  were  not  justified  by  circumcision  or  any  works  of 
theirs  whatever,  but  purely  by  faith  ;  and  for  this  he  pro- 
duceth  the  example  of  Abraham,  their  venerable  patriarch, 
and  the  testimony  of  David  who  was  a  prophet,  and  one  of 
the  most  eminent  of  their  kings. 

With  regard  to  Abraham,  though  he  was  no  doubt  justi- 
fied, or  received  into  a  state  of  favor  with  God  when  he 
called  him  at  first,  and  made  himself  known  to  him.  Gen. 
xii.  1,  yet  that  passage  of  his  history  was  not  sufficiently 
explicit  for  the  apostle's  purpose ;  for  though  it  supposes,  it 
does  not  expressly  mention  Abraham's  faith  or  justification, 
but  only  his  obedience  to  the  divine  call.  Nor  was  it  to 
his  purpose  to  refer  the  Judaizers  to  that  remarkable  instance 
of  his  faith,  in  offering  up  his  son  Isaac,  which  was  so  high- 
ly approved  of  God,  Gen.  xxii.  10 — 19,  for  they  could  have 
replied,  that  that  was  a  work,  and  performed  after  he  was 
circumcised  and  in  covenant  with  God,  and  so  did  not  sup- 
port his  position,  but  was  rather  a  proof  of  their  own  doc- 
trine. Therefore,  to  refute  the  Jewish  argument,  he  must 
bring  an  express  proof  that  Abraham  was  justified  merely 
by  faith,  and  that  before  God  had  formally  made  a  covenant 
with  him,  and  while  he  was  yet  an  uncircumcised  Gentile.* 
And  to  prove  this,  he  produceth  Gen.  xv.  6,  "Abraham 
believed  God,  and  it  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteous- 
ness." This  passage  was  directly  in  point,  and  fully  to 
his  purpose   in   all  respects.     The  use  he  makes  of  it  is 

*  It  appears  to  liave  been  an  opinion  amon^  the  Jews,  that  Abra- 
ham was  not  pure,  or  accepted  with  God,  till  after  liis  circumcision, 
(See  Whitby  on  Rom.  iv,  1,)  and  therefore  it  was  necessary  to  produce 
an  express  Scripture  testimony  to  the  contrary. 


116        WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

chiefly  to  show — That  Abraham  was  justified  by  faith  alone, 
or  believing  God ;  and  that  not  only  in  distinction  from, 
but  in  opposition  to  all  works  of  any  kind,  done  in  any 
view,  or  required  under  any  consideration  whatever,  ver.  4, 
5,  6,  16. — That  he  was  justified  while  an  uncircumcised 
Gentile  ;  and  that  his  circumcision  afterwards  was  a  seal 
of  his  being  previously  justified  by  faith,  that  in  this  he 
might  be  a  pattern  of  the  justification  of  all  them  that  be- 
lieve, though  they  be  not  circumcised,  ver.  9 — 13  ;  and  to 
this  purpose  he  applies  at  last  all  that  he  had  said  on  the 
subject,  ver.  23,  24,  25.  Thus  he  entirely  overturned  the 
argument  of  the  Jews,  who  could  not  plead  that  Abraham 
was  justified  by  any  holiness  or  good  works  of  his  previous 
to  his  being  circumcised,  without  giving  up  their  plea  for 
the  necessity  of  circumcision  to  justification. 

But  it  will  perhaps  be  said,  That  though  the  apostle's  ar- 
gument is  a  sufiicient  refutation  of  the  Jewish  antecedent 
holiness,  it  does  not  exclude  that  antecedent  holiness  which 
Mr.  Fuller  pleads  for,  because  that  was  prior  not  only  to 
Abraham's  circumcision,  but  also  to  the  time  referred  to 
Gen.  XV.  6,  when  he  is  said  to  have  righteousness  imputed 
to  him,  and  so  is  beyond  the  limits  of  the  apostle's  argu- 
ment with  the  Jews.     Now,  to  this  I  answer, 

1.  That  it  is  evident  from  the  whole  of  the'apostle's  doc- 
trine on  this  important  subject,  that  he  not  only  excludes 
circumcision  and  the  holiness  which  the  Jews  supposed  con- 
nected with  it,  from  being  antecedently  necessary  to  justi- 
fication ;  but  he  also  excludes  all  holiness  or  good  works 
whatever,  either  ceremonial  or  moral,  which  can  in  any 
sense  be  denominated  the  works  of  the  law,  performed 
either  by  Jew  or  Gentile,  with  respect  to  justification,  or 
in  any  other  view,  from  being  antecedently  necessary  to  it. 
He  lays  the  foundation  of  all  that  he  says  upon  it,  by 
proving  that  bodi  Jews  and  Gentiles  are  all  under  sin,  and 
in  a  state  of  guiltand  condemnation,  Rom.  iii.  9,  19,  23, 


AS   THE    JUSTIFIER   OF    THE    UNGODLY.  117 

and  that  they  are  without  strength,  enemies  to  God,  and  un- 
godly,  chap.  v.  6,  10,  This  cuts  out  every  idea  that  men 
can  possess  any  holiness,  or  perform  any  acceptable  works 
previous  to  their  deliverance  from  that  state  ;  and  to  suppose 
they  can,  is  a  flat  contradiction  to  the  Scripture  account  of 
man's  natural  state.  Further,  he  shows  that  sinners  are  jus- 
tified freely  by  God's  grace  through  the  redemption  that  is 
in  Jesus  Christ,  Rom.  iii.  24.  Now,  as  justification  sup- 
poses guilt,  and  respects  the  ungodly,  so  its  being  of  free 
grace  and  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ,  sets 
aside  every  idea  of  antecedent  holiness  in  the  subjects  of 
it,  either  as  meriting  it  or  qualifying  them  for  it ;  and  thus 
only  can  it  exclude  all  boasting,  ver.  27.  Again,  with  re- 
gard to  the  way  in  which  men  actually  receive  this  blessing, 
he  restricts  that  to  faith  alone,  which  he  everywhere  op- 
poses to  works  on  this  subject,  and  declares  that  "  to  him  that 
worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungod- 
ly, his  faith  is  counted  for  righteousness,"  Rom.  iv.  5  ;  and 
he  represents  this  faith  as  corresponding  with  the  freeness 
of  that  grace  by  which  the  blessing  is  conferred,  ver.  16. 
Now,  as  it  is  by  faith  alone  that  men  are  justified,  and  pass 
from  death  unto  life  ;  as  faith  itself  is  the  very  beginning 
of  spiritual  life,  and  the  principle  of  all  holiness  either  in 
heart  or  conduct ;  so  there  can  be  no  true  holiness  antece- 
dent to  it  for  a  moment  of  time,  far  less  for  a  series  of  years. 
And  if  it  was  otherwise  with  Abraham  and  David,  as  Mr. 
Fuller  affirms,  their  case  must  have  been  very  singular 
indeed,  and  their  example  altogether  unfit  to  illustrate 
the  apostle's  doctrine  respecting  the  justification  of  the  un- 
godly. 

2.  Though  the  apostle  cites  Gen.  xv.  6,  as  sufficient 
to  prove  to  the  Jews  that  Abraham  was  justified  by  faith 
before  he  was  circumcised  ;  yet  he  does  not  by  that  passage 
intend  to  show  that  Abraham  was  not  justified  till  then.  It 
is  plain,  beyond  all  dispute,  that  Abraham  was  a  believer 


118  WHETHER    JUSTIFVING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

in  God  several  years  before  this,  even  from  the  time  that  the 
God  of  glory  first  appeared  to  him,  Acts  vii.  2,  3,  and  call- 
ed him  to  leave  his  country,  his  kindred,  and  father's  house, 
Gen.  xii.  1.  The  promises  were  then  originally  made  to 
him,  which  were  afterwards  renewed  at  different  times,  re- 
specting the  land  of  Canaan,  the  multiplication  of  his  seed, 
and  that  all  the  families  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed  in 
him,  ver.  2,  3.  To  these  original  promises  the  Apostle  re- 
fers, when  he  says  the  gospel  was  preached  before  to  Abra- 
ham, and  terms  them  the  covenant  which  was  confirmed  of 
God  in  Christ,  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  before  the  giv- 
ing of  the  law,  Gal.  iii.  8,  17  ;  and  he  explains  the  spiritual 
sense  of  these  promises  to  be  the  heavenly  inheritance,  the 
promise  of  the  Messiah,  and  of  blessing  the  Gentile  nations 
in  him,  Heb.  xi.  10,  16,  Gal.  iii.  8,  16.  That  Abraham 
believed  God  in  these  promises  when  first  made  to  him, 
there  can  be  no  doubt ;  for  the  apostle,  referring  to  this  date, 
says,  "  By  faith  Abraham,  when  he  was  called  to  go  out  in- 
to a  place  which  he  should  after  receive  for  an  inheritance, 
obeyed  ;  and  he  went  out,  not  knowing^  whither  he  went." 
Heb.  xi.  8.  His  obedience  to  the  divine  call  demonstrates 
his  faith  in  God,  and  in  the  promises  he  had  made  to  him,  and 
made  him  yield  himself  up  implicitly  to  his  direction.  Now, 
the  Scriptures  constantly  declare,  that  all  that  believe  are 
justified — !that  they  have  everlasting  life  —  and  shall  not 
come  into  condemnation,  but  are  passed  from  death  unto 
life,  Acts  xiii.  39.  John  iii.  36,  chap.  v.  24.  Therefore 
Abraham  must  undoubtedly  have  been  justified  when 
he  first  believed,  and  was  converted  from  the  idolatry  of 
his  father's  house,  to  serve  the  living  and  true  God,  Josh, 
xxiv.  2.  Mr.  Fuller  himself  admits,  as  was  formerly  no- 
ticed, "  that  we  are  introduced  into  that  blessed  state,"  viz  : 
of  justification,  "  at  the  moment  of  our  believing.  From 
that  instant  we  are  no  more  under  the  law,  but  under  grace. 
The  curses  of  the  former  stand  no  longer  against   us,   and 


AS    THE    JUSTIFIER    OF    THE    UNGODLY,  119 

the  blessings  of  the  latter  become  our  portion  ;"*  and  there- 
fore he  cannot  consistently  deny  that  Abraham  was  justified 
from  the  first  moment  of  his  believing  in  God.  And  now, 
what  has  become  of  Abraham's  antecedent  holiness,  which 
Mr.  Fuller  thinks  decisive  of  the  question  ?  Can  he  pro- 
duce any  of  it  previous  to  this  period,  when  he  first  believ- 
ed God,  and  was  certainly  justified  ?  This  I  am  confident 
he  cannot  do  ;  for  it  appears  that  Abraham  till  then  was  an 
idolater  ;  so  that  God,  in  justifying  him,  in  the  strictest 
sense  justified  the  ungodly. 

But  though  Abraham  believed  God,  and  was  justified 
when  he  first  received  the  promises,  yet  his  faith  and  pa- 
tience were  afterwards  to  be  tried,  and  his  justification  to 
be  further  manifested.  The  accomplishment  of  the  promises, 
which  included  his  notable  seed  Christ,  was  to  begin  in  his 
having  an  heir  of  his  own  body  ;  but  this  was  delayed  till 
he  and  Sarah  were  past  age,  and  every  natural  ground  of 
hope  was  cut  oflT.  In  these  circumstances  the  promise  was 
renewed,  Gen.  xv.  1 — 5,  when  his  faith  in  God  who  quick- 
eneth  the  dead,  triumphed  over  every  difficulty  ;  so  that, 
though  he  was  justified  before,  on  this  occasion  God  mani- 
fested his  acceptance  of  him  as  righteous  purely  by  faith, 
without  works,  ver.  6,  which  is  recorded  not  for  his  sake 
only,  but  for  us  also,  Rom.  iv.  23,  24.  After  he  had  received 
the  promised  heir,  his  faith  was  put  to  a  further  trial,  by  the 
command  to  offer  him  up  for  a  burnt-offering,  Gen.  xxii.  2. 
This  he  obeyed  in  intention,  and  the  faith  which  now  wrought 
with  his  works  was  his  "  accounting  that  God  was  able  to 
raise  him  up,  even  from  the  dead,"  Heb.  xi.  19.  On  this 
occasion  he  received  the  most  signal  testimony  of  the  di- 
vine approbation,  and  another  renewel  of  the  promises  rati- 
fied by  an  oath,  ver.  16,  17,  IS.  Thus  it  appears  that 
Abraham,  who  was  justified  when  he  first  believed,  being 
freely  forgiven  all  his  past  sins,  and  accepted  into   a   state 

♦  Tlie  Protestant  Dissenter's  Magazine  for  April,  1799,  p.  1 13. 


120        WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

of  favor  with  God,  was  afterwards  manifested  to  be  in  a 
justified  state,  and  approved  of  God  upon  the  trial  of  his 
faith  and  obedience. 

With  regard  to  the  testimony  of  David,  the  apostle 
quotes  the  two  first  verses  of  Psal.  xxxii.  "  Blessed  are 
they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins  are  co- 
vered. Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  im- 
pute sin,"  Rom.  iv.  7,  8.  Now,  though  these  words  may 
include  that  continued  forgiveness  of  sin  which  is  the 
privilege  of  the  people  of  God  who  are  already  in  a  justified 
state,  (see  1  John  i.  8,  9.  chap.  ii.  1,  2,  12,)  and  though 
David,  in  a  subsequent  part  of  that  Psalm,  speaks  of  his 
acknowledging  his  sin,  and  obtaining  forgiveness,  and 
likewise  shows  that  this  is  the  exercise  and  attainment  of  all 
the  saints  ;  *'  For  this  shall  every  one  that  is  godly  pray 
unto  thee,  in  a  time  when  thoumayest  be  found,"  ver.  5,  6. 
Yet  it  is  evident  that  the  apostle  does  not  cite  the  beginning 
of  this  Psalm  as  descriptive  of  the  blessedness  of  the  man 
who  has  been  the  friend  and  servant  of  God  for  a  series  of 
years,*  and  in  whom  the  Lord  finds  previous  righteousness 
and  good  works,  and  so  is  justified  by  works  and  not  by 
faith  only,  of  which  James  speaks,  chap.  ii.  24 ;  but  he  pro- 
duceth  it  as  a  description  of  the  blessedness  of  the  man  unto 
whom  God  imputeth  righteousness  without  works, 
consisting  in  having  his  sins  freely  forgiven,  covered  and 
not  imputed  to  him  unto  his  condemnation,  ver.  6,  7,  8  ; 
which  imports  the  imputation  of  righteousness  to  him. 
This  is  the  only  sense  which  agrees  with  the  whole  scope 
of  the  apostle's  reasoning  on  the  subject  of  justification  ;  for 
he  is  not  treating  of  the  blessedness  of  the  godly  who  have 
been  for  a  series  of  years  in  a  justified  state,  but  of  the 
blessedness  which  comes  upon  the  ungodly  when  they  are 
introduced  into  that  state  upon  their  first  believing. 

♦  Page  187. 


AS    THE    JUSTIFIER    OF    THE    UNGODLY.  121 

And  now  I  leave  it  with  the  reader  to  judge  whether  Mr. 
Fuller  has  proved  by  the  examples  of  Abraham  and  David, 
that  antecedent  holiness  is  necessary  to  the  justification  of 
the  ungodly ;  and  if  he  has,  whether  these  examples  (as  he 
applies  them)  do  not  equally  prove  that  men  must  be 
the  friends  and  servants  of  God  tor  a  series  of  years  before  they 
are  justified  ;  for  no  singularity  can  be  pleaded  in  the  case  of 
Abraham  and  David,  nor  any  reason  given  why  their  justifi- 
cation should  be  delayed  longer  than  other  men's.  As  to  what 
he  says  of  the  necessity  of  repentance  in  order  to  forgiveness ; 
a  principle  which  he  thinks  requires  to  be  disowned  before 
the  position  maintained  by  me  can  be  admitted,  I  have 
answered  that  already. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  sense  of  Rom.  Iv.  4,  5.  "  Now, 
to  him  that  worketh  is  the  reward  not  reckoned  of  grace, 
but  of  debt.  But  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  believeth  on 
him  thai  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  for 
righteousness."  The  aposde  is  here  showing  how  guilty 
sinners  receive  or  obtain  the  blessing  of  justification,  or  of 
pardon  and  acceptance  into  a  state  of  favor  with  God. 
Two  ways  are  mentioned,  viz.  works  and  faith.  As  to  the 
way  of  works,  he  had  before  proved  that  it  is  entirely  shut 
up,  and  that  it  is  impossible  for  any  to  be  justified  in  that 
way,  because  all  have  sinned  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of 
God,  chap.  iii.  19,  20,  23 ;  and  that  therefore  men  must  be 
justified  purely  by  grace  through  faith  in  Christ's  blood, 
ver.  24,  25,  26.  In  tie  passage  under  consideration  he 
shows,  that  if  justification  were  of  works,  it  could  not  be  of 
grace,  or  of  free  favor  to  the  guilty,  but  must  be  counted 
as  a  debt  due  to  him  for  his  work;  "Now,  to  him  that 
worketh  is  the  reward  not  reckoned  of  grace,  but  of  debt.'* 
Every  body  knows  that  the  reward  of  a  man's  work  cannot 
be  reckoned  as  a  free  gift,  or  matter  of  mere  favor,  but  as 

•  Pa^e  188. 
11 


122        WHETHER   JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

a  matter  of  debt  due  to  him  from  his  employer ;  "  for  the 
workmaQ  is  worthy  of  his  hire."     The  reward  may,  indeed, 
far  exceed    the  value  of  the   work,  or  any  benefit  the  em- 
ployer receives  from  it ;  and  this   must  always  be  the  case 
in  all  the  works  which  the  most  perfect  and  innocent  crea- 
ture can  perform  iu  obedience  to  his  Maker,  for  they  can- 
not in  the  least  profit  him.     "Is   it   gain  to  him  that  thou 
makest  thy  ways  perfect — If  thou  be  righteous,  what  givest 
thou  him?  or  what  receiveth  he  of  thine  hand  ?*'  Job  xxii.  3. 
chap.  XXXV.  7.     "  Or  who  hath  first  given  to  him,  and   it 
shall  be  recompensed  to  him  again  ?"  Rom.  xi.  35.     In  this 
view  there  never  could  have  Leen  any  such  thing  as  justifi- 
cation by  works   as  a   debt  ;  even   though  Adam  and  the 
whole  of  his  posterity  had  stood   in  innocency,  the  reward 
must  still  have  been  of  grace.     Had  this  been  the  apostle's 
notion  of  grace,  he   could  not  have  opposed  it  to  works  in 
justification  ;  for  whether   it  were   of  works   or  of  faith,  it 
would   be  still  of  grace  or  free  favor.     It  is   evident,  how- 
ever, that  this   is   not  the  grace  which  the  apostle  has   in 
view,  for  no  Jew   or  Judaizer  could   deny  that ;  but  the 
grace  he  speaks  of  is  such  as  would  be  annihilated,  if  works 
of  any  kind,  or  under  any  consideration  whatever,  were  to 
have  place  in,  or  influence  upon,  the  justification  of  a  sin- 
ner.    In  that  case,  he  says,  "  the  reward  is  not  reckoned 
OF  GRACE,  but  of  DEBT."     So  that  graco  and  works  cannot 
mix  here.     They  must  both  change  their  nature  before  they 
can  unite   either   in  the  election  or  justification  of  sinners. 
Rom.  xi.  6. 

In  the  next  verse  he  opposes  believing  to  working,  and 
the  free  justification  of  the  ungodly  through  faith,  to  a  re- 
ward of  debt.  "But  to  him  thatworketh  not,  but  believeth 
on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  for 
(«'j  unto)  righteousness."     On  these  words  I  observe, 

1.  That  him  "  that  worketh  not  "  is  opposed  to  "  him  that 
worketh"  iu  the  foregoing  vtrse.     No  hint  is  here  given 


AS    THE    JUSTIFIER   OP    THE    UNGODLY.  123 

that  he  worketh  for  God  in  any  respect  more  than  with 
respect  to  justification  ;  nor  is  there  the  least  intimation  of 
his  being  possessed  of  holiness  for  a  series  of  years  before 
this.  The  apostle  expressly  says,  he  worketh  not ;  so  that 
all  arguments  grounded  on  the  contrary  supposition  are 
vain  and  nugatory,  as  being  without  the  least  shadow  of 
support.  Instead  of  working,  he  is  said  to  believe;  "he 
worketh  not,  but  believeth."     On  this  I  observe, 

2.  That  working  and  believing  are  here  directly  opposed 
to  each  other,  and  the  former  is  altogether  excluded  in  jus- 
tification :  it  is  *'  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  believeth." 
But  if  believing  were  a  work,  as  Mr.  Fuller  affirms,*  the 
distinction  and  opposition  would  be  lost ;  and  it  would  not 
be  true  that  he  worketh  not,  or  that  he  is  justified  by  faith 
without  works  ;  but  only  that  he  is  not  justified  by  one 
kind  of  works,  though  he  is  by  another.  To  say,  that 
"though  faith  be  a  work,  yet  it  does  not  justify  as  a  work," 

♦  In  the  BiblicalMagazine  for  Jan.  1802,  p.  34,  Mr.  Fuller  cites 
John  vi.  29,  to  show  that  faith  is  expressly  called  a  work.  But  it  ifi 
plain  that  our  Lord  does  not  term  believing  in  him  the  work  of  God 
with  a  view  to  represent  faith  as  a  W(irk,  but  merely  to  suit  hi-s  an- 
swer to  the  words  of  the  question  put  to  him,  from  which  this  expres- 
sion is  taken.  The  Jews  ask,  "  What  shall  we  do,  that  we  might 
work  the  works  or  God  1  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Thia 
is  the  WORK  OP  God,  that  ye  believe  on  him  whom  he  hath  sent." 
Though  Christ  adopts  their  expression,  yet  he  shows  immediately 
that  he  did  not  mean  working  by  it,  but  believing  on  him.  And  they 
appear  to  have  understood  hm^ln  that  sense  ;  for  iheir  next  question 
is,  "  What  sign  showest  thou  then,  that  we  may  see,  and  believe 
theeI"  ver.  30.  Many  instances  can  be  produced  of  such  accommo- 
dated use  of  terms,  wliich  are  not  to  be  taken  in  a  strict  or  proper 
sense,  far  less  as  the  ground  of  an  argument.  In  this  very  chapter 
our  Lord  takes  occasion  froin  their  mentioning  the  manna,  to  speak 
of  himself  as  ihe  true  bread  that  came  down  from  heaven,  answerable 
to  which  he  represents  faith  as  eating  his  flfsh  and  drinking  his  blood; 
but  would  it  be  right  to  understand  this  of  proper  eating  and  drink- 
ing'? 


124        WHETHER   JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

is  a  distinction  only  necessary  for  those  who,  having  con- 
verted faith  into  a  work,  wish  to  avoid  saying  that  we  are 
justified  by  a  work.  The  apostle  did  not  use  any  such  un- 
intelligible distinction,  because  he  did  not  consider  faith  as 
a  work,  and  therefore  had  no  occasion  for  it.  While  he 
sets  before  us  the  work  of  Christ  as  the  only  procuring 
cause  of  justification,  he  does  not  scruple  to  say  "  that  faith 
was  reckoned  to  Abraham  for  (or  unto)  righteousness,"  ver. 
9,  and  to  show  at  large  that  this  faith  wns  his  believing  God, 
ver.  18,  23,  and  that  it  is  "with  the  heart  man  believeth  un- 
to righteousness,"  chap.  x.  10.  In  all  this  he  uses  no  cau- 
tion or  distinction,  as  if  he  were  apprehensive  that  he  might 
be  misunderstood  as  pleading  for  justification  by  works. 
But  if  faith  is  really  and  properly  a  work,  it  unavoidably  fol- 
lows  that  we  are  justified  by  a  work,  so  far  as  faith  is  con- 
cerned in  our  justification. 

3.  Here  we  have  a  description  of  that  faith  whereby  the 
sinner  believes  unto  righteousness,  or  receives  justification: 
"  He  worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justifi. 
ETH  THE  UNGODLY."  Eiiough  has  already  been  said  on 
the  nature  of  faith.  His  believing  on  him  that  justifieth  the 
ungodly  imports, 

(1.)  The  view  he  has  of  his  own  character  and  state, 
namely,  that  he  is  an  ungodly  sinner,  an  enemy  of  God, 
and  a  transgressor  of  his  holy,  just  and  good  law,  both  in 
the  state  of  his  mind  and  course  of  his  life ;  that  he  has  in. 
curred  and  justly  deserves  the  in^liclion  of  its  dreadful  pen- 
alty ;  that  his  case  is  altogether  hopeless  as  to  any  thing  he 
can  do  for  his  own  relief;  and  that,  but  for  the  sovereign 
free  mercy  of  God  through  Christ  to  the  chief  of  sinners, 
he  must  perish  for  ever.  Without  some  suitable  convictions 
of  this  kind  he  cannot  believe  on  him  that  justifieth  the  un- 
godly ;  because  without  this  he  is  not  cut  ofi*  from  all  hope 
in  himself,  or  his  own  endeavors;  he  does  not  see  himself  to 
be  absolutely  ungodly,  or  as  needing  to   be  justified  under 


AS    THE    JUSTIFIER    OP    THE    UNGODLY.  125 

that  humiliating  character.     Believing  on  him  that  justift- 
eth  the  ungodly  imports, 

(2.)  The  view  he  has  of  the  character  of  God.  This  is 
what  is  chiefly  intended.  He  believes  on  God  as  possess- 
ing the  glorious  character  and  prerogative  of  being  the  jus- 
tifier  of  the  ungodly.  When  Abraham  believed  God's  pro- 
mise, he  saw  no  natural  fitness  in  himself  or  in  Sarah  to  have 
a  son ;  but  he  believed  in  the  supernatural  power  of  God 
who  quickeneth  the  dead,  and  calleth  those  things  ihat  be 
not  as  though  they  were,  ver.  17.  Even  so,  when  a  sinner 
believes  unto  righteousness,  he  sees  no  fitness  in  himself 
to  be  justified  in  the  natural  way  of  works,  but  in  all  re- 
spects the  reverse;  yet  he  believes  in  the  supernatural  grace 
of  God,  whose  prerogative  it  is  to  justify  the  ungodly,  such 
as  he,  through  the  obedience  of  another.  This  is  his  faith, 
which  is  more  fully  described  afterwards  to  be  a  "believing 
on  him  that  raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead,  who 
was  delivered  for  our  offences,  and  raised  again  for  our  jus- 
tification," ver.  24,  25.  Here  we  see  that  his  faith  is  a  be- 
lieving on  God  as  having  substituted  his  own  Son  in  the 
room  of  the  guilty,  delivered  him  up  to  death  as  an  atone- 
ment for  their  sins,  and  raised  him  again  from  the  dead  for 
their  justification,  thereby  demonstrating  that  he  is  fully 
satisfied  and  well  pleased  in  the  sacrifice  of  his  beloved  Son, 
and  requires  no  more  offering  for  sin.  By  the  obedience 
of  Christ  unto  death  he  perceives  the  law  magnified  and 
honored,  sin  expiated,  justice  fully  satisfied,  and  pardon 
and  eternal  life  procured  for  lost  sinners  ;  so  that  he  now 
sees  how  it  is  just  in  a  holy  and  righteous  God  to  justify 
the  ungodly  such  as  he  is,  purely  through  the  worthiness  of 
the  Lamb  that  was  slain.  This,  and  this  alone,  gives  peace 
to  his  guilty  conscience  and  rest  to  his  soul. 

This  faith  in  its  very  nature  is  opposite  to  his  working  in 
order  to  be  justified  ;  for  it  is  a  belief  that  all  his  works  in 
that  view  are  in  vain  and  unavailable,  Rom.  iii.  20.     It  ia 

11* 


126         WHETHER   JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

a  belief  that  all  his  works  to  that  end  are  needless,  because 
he  sees  that  the  work  which  justifies  the  ungodly  is  already 
completely  finished  and  accepted  without  his  concurrence, 
and  that  nothing  can  be  added  to  it  asthj  ground  of  accept- 
ance, either  in  p  )int  of  merit  or  moral  fitness.  Nay,  it  is 
a  belief  that  all  works  performed  in  this  view  are  exceeding- 
ly sinful,  as  frustrating  the  grace  of  God,  and  implying  that 
Christ  hath  died  in  vain,  Gal.  ii.  21.  Whoever,  therefore, 
are  working  and  laboring  in  order  to  be  justified,  have  not 
yet  believed  on  God  as  the  justifier  of  the  ungodly.  Such 
a  belief  would  have  furnished  them  with  other  principles  of 
action,  and  have  made  all  their  works  and  exercises  turn 
upon  a  very  different  hings.  But  we  i.iast  remember  that 
this  faith  is  a  supernatural  principle,  opposite  to  our  natural 
bias  and  reasonings,  and  therefore  requires  the  mighty  pow- 
er of  God  both  to  produce  and  sustain  it.     I  observe, 

(4.)  That  believing  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  is 
here  declared  to  be  justifying  faith.  "  To  him  that  worketh 
not,   but   believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his 

FAITH  is  COUNTED  FOR  (or  UUto)  RIGHTEOUSNESS."  Count- 
ing, reckoning,  or  imputing  faith  for  righteousness,  is  not 
the  apostle's  usual  style  on  this  subject.  He  uses  it  only 
throughout  this  4th  chapter,  where  he  is  commenting  upon 
Gen.  XV.  6,  which  leads  him  to  adopt  the  phraseology  of  his 
text :  but  at  the.  beginning  of  the  next  chapter  he  drops 
this  phraseology,  and  expresseth  the  same  thing  in  his  usual 
manner  by  "  being  justified  by  faith  ;"  so  that,  to  have  faith 
counted  for  righteousness,  is  to  be  justified  by  faith.  But 
as  the  words  have  been  variously  explained,  I  shall  here  give 
the  sense  in  which  I  understand  them. 

Faith  here  does  not  mean  the  olject  of  faith,  as  some 
explain  it,  but  a  man's  believing.  Abraham's  faith,  which 
was  imputed  to  him  unto  righteousness,  was  his  believing 
God,  ver.  3, — his  believing  in  hope,  ver.  18, — his  being 
strong   in  faith,   ver.  20,  and  fully  persuaded,  ver.  21.     It 


AS    THE    JUSTIFIER    OF    THE    UNGODLY.  127 

is  opposed  to  unbelief,  staggering,  or  being  weak  in  faith, 
ver.  19,  20  ;  and  in  this  5th  verse  it  is  described  to  be  a  per- 
son's believing  on  him  that  jnstifieth  the  ungodly.  This 
sense  is  fixed  down  by  the  apostle  when   he  says,  "  If  thou 

Shalt BELIEVE   IN   THINE   HKART  —  FoR    WITH    THE  HEART 

Man  believeth  unto  righteousness,"  Rom.  x.  9,  10. 

By  righteousness  here,  many  understand  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ.  This  is,  indeed,  the  only  meritorious  or 
procuring  cause  of  justification.  It  is  by  the  righteousness 
of  one,  or  one  righteousness,  that  the  free  gift  comes  upon 
all  men  unto  justification  of  life,  chap.  v.  18.  It  is  by  the 
obedience  of  one  that  many  shall  be  made  righteous,  v.  19. 
God  hath  made  him  to  he  a  sin-offering  for  us,  that  we 
might  1)0  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him,  2  Cor.  v. 
21.  Hence  he  is  said  to  be  made  of  God  unto  us  right- 
eousness, 1  Cor.  i.  30,  and  we  are  said  to  be  justified  by 
his  blood,  Rom.  v.  9.  Yet  I  am  of  opinion  that  righteous- 
ness in  the  passage  under  consideration  signifies  the  bless- 
ing of  justification  itself,  which  is  received  by  faith  in 
Christ's  righteousness.  This,  I  apprehend,  is  the  sense  of 
the  word  through  the  whole  of  this  chapter  and  many  other 
places,  such  as  Rom.  ix,  30.  ch.  x.  4,  10.  2  Cor.  iii.  9. 
chap.  V.  21.  (jal.  ii.  21.  chap.  iii.  21.  For  to  be  justified 
through  Christ's  obedience  is  to  be  made  or  constituted 
righteous,  Rom.  v.  19,  or  to  be  made  the  righteousness  of 
God  in  him,  2  Cor.  v.  21. 

But  it  will  be  asked,  In  what  sense  is  a  man's  faith 
counted  to  him  for,  or  unto,  righteousness  or  justification  ? 
I  cannot  better  illustrate  this  than  by  referring  to  what  is 
said  of  the  miraculous  cures  which  Christ  performed  on 
the  bodies  of  men.  He  asks  some  of  those  who  a})plied, 
"Believe  ye  that  I  am  able  to  do  this?"  Mat.  ix.  28  ;  and 
to  another  he  says,  "  Only  believe  ;  all  things  are  possible 
to  him  that  believeth,"  Mark  v.  36.  It  was  certainly 
Christ's  divine  power  alone  that  healed  them;  yet  not  with- 


128         WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

out  their  believing  that  he  was  able  to  do  it ;  and  when 
they  believed  that,  his  power  was  exerted  in  healing  them 
according  to  their  faith  in  it;  "  As  thou  hast  believed,  so 
be  it  unto  thee,"  Matt.  viii.  13.  "According  to  your  faith 
be  it  unto  you,"  chap.  ix.  29.  And  so  he  places  their  cure 
to  the  account  of  their  faith,  or  counts  their  faith  to  them 
unto  healing:  "Thy  faith  hath  saved  thee,"  Luke  xviii. 
42.  "Thy  faith  hath  mads  thee  whole,"  Mat.  ix.  22. 
Christ's  power  was  always  the  same,  whether  they  believed 
it  or  not ;  but  it  was  when  it  became  the  object  of  their  be- 
lief that  it  effected  their  cure.  Nothing  could  be  more  gra- 
tuitous and  beyond  the  compass  of  human  power  than  those 
merciful  cures  ;  so  that  the  manner  in  which  they  were  con- 
ferred clearly  illustrates  the  point  in  hand.  Healing  the 
diseased,  answers  to  the  justifying  the  ungodly.  Christ's 
power  effected  the  former  ;  his  righteousness  the  latter  ;  yet 
it  was  by  believing  that  his  power  and  righteousness  are 
alone  sutficient  for  these  purposes,  that  the  benefit  was  ob- 
tained, and  so  it  is  ascribed  to  faith.  We  may  therefore 
run  the  parallel  thus.  To  him  that  worked  not  for  his  cure, 
but  believed  on  him  that  healed  the  diseased,  his  faith  was 
counted  for,  or  unto,  healing  ;  so,  in  like  manner,  "  To 
him  that  worketh  not.  but  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth 
the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  for,  or  unto,  righeousness,'* 
i.  e.  justification  :  "  For  with  the  heart  man  believeth  unto 
righteousness,"  or  to  the  obtaining  of  justification,  Rom. 
X.  10. 

From  the  whole  it  appears  to  me,  that  God  may  as 
properly  be  said  to  justify  the  ungodly,  as  to  pardon  the 
guilty,  reconcile  enemies,  heal  the  diseased,  or  quicken  the 
dead  ;  for  certainly  the  character  of  ungodly  applies  to  that 
state  wherein  men  are  really  such  ;  and  if  justification  be 
a  taking  them  out  of  that  state,  how  could  it  be  better  ex- 
pressed than  by  justifying  the  ungodly?  Indeed,  none  but 
the  ungodly  are  capable  of  being  justified  in  the  apostle's 


AS    THE    JUSTIFIER    OF    THE    UNGODLY.  129 

sense  of  that  word.  For,  though  faith  is  necessary  to  justi- 
fication ;  yet  as  it  is  not  the  ground  of  it,  but  receives  it 
as  a  free  gift,  and  as  this  reception  cannot  be  shown  to  be 
prior  to  it  in  order  of  time  ;  so  it  does  not  constitute  a  god- 
ly character  or  state,  previous  to  justification  ;  for  there  is 
no  unjustified  godly  person,  nor  is  any  person  in  a  godly 
state  till  he  is  justified  :  therefore  justification  must 
respect  the  ungodly,  and  the  apostle's  expression  is  the 
most  correct  that  could  be  devised.  It  also  appears  that 
justifying  faith  implies  the  person's  conviction  that  he  him- 
self is  ungodly,  and  has  incurred  the  curse  ;  for  he  believeth 
on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  which  he  would  not 
submit  to  but  for  such  a  conviction.  Further,  it  is  evident, 
that  by  this  faith  he  is  justified,  or  receives  pardon  and  ac- 
ceptance with  God  ;  for  it  is  said,  his  faith  is  counted  for 
righteousness.  Now,  and  not  till  now,  his  state  is  chang- 
ed, and  he  is  no  longer  ungodly,  nor  denominated  such. 
That  faith  by  which  he  is  justified  is  accompanied  by  true 
repentance,  purifies  his  heart,  Avorks  by  love,  and  is  pro- 
ductive of  obedience  ;  and  though  sin,  to  his  grief,  still  re- 
mains in  him,  of  which  he  becomes  more  and  more  sensi- 
ble as  he  grows  in  spirituality  and  the  knowledge  of  him- 
self;  yet  it  shall  not  have  dominion  over  him,  for  he  is 
not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace.  He  lives  by  the 
of  the  Son  of  God,  and  Christ  lives  in  him. 

None  can  believe  in  Christ  for  righteousness  without  a 
conviction  of  sin  and  its  consequences,  for  they  can  see  no 
need  they  have  of  him,  nor  any  suitableness  in  him  without 
this.  But  many  may  have  strong  convictions  of  sin  awakened 
in  them  both  by  the  word  and  providences  of  God  ;  their 
minds  may  be  filled  with  fear  and  distress,  and  an  earnest 
desire  of  deliverance  at  least  from  the  punishment  of  sin, 
and  perhaps  from  sin  itself  as  the  means  of  obtaining  that. 
They  may  also  be  very  busily  engaged  in  establishing  their 
own  righteousness  in  a  variety  of  ways,  and,  among  the 


130        WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

rest,  in  fitting  and  qualifying  themselves  to  be  justified  by 
Ciirit-t's  righteousness.  Nay,  they  may  be  taught  in  theory 
to  renounce  all  this  labor,  as  if  they  were  doing  nothing, 
and  to  depend  upon  the  merits  of  Christ  alone  for  accept- 
ance ;  and  so  be  engaged  in  doing  and  undoing,  alter- 
nately working,  and,  as  it  were,  humbly  reiioimcing  all  their 
works ;  while  in  all  this  exercise  they  have  not  the  least  no- 
tion that  they  can  obtain  justification  believing  in  the  work 
and  worthiness  of  the  Sou  of  God  as  alone  sufficient  to 
justify  the  ungodly. 

In  the  Commission,  p.  84,  85,  I  mention  the  effect  which 
the  doctrine  I  oppose  must  have  upon  the  mind  of  an  awa- 
ke ed  sinner.  *'  He  who  conceives  that,  in  order  to  his 
pardon  and  acceptance  with  God,  he  must  first  be  possess- 
ed of  such  good  dispositions  and  holy  affections  as  are 
commonly  included  in  the  nature  of  faith,  will  find  no  im- 
mediate relief  from  the  gospel,  nor  any  thing  in  it  which 
fully  reaches  his  case,  while  he  views  himself  merely  as  a 
guilty  sinner — He  does  not  believe  that  Christ's  death  will 
be  of  any  benefit  to  him  as  a  mere  sinner,"  i.  e.  while  he 
views  himself  only  as  such  ;  "  nor  does  he  expect  relief  to 
his  conscience  purely  and  directly  from  the  atonement,  but 
through  the  medium  of  a  better  opinion  of  his  own  heart 
and  character.  This  sentiment,  if  he  is  really  concerned 
about  the  salvation  of  his  soul,  must  set  him  upon  attempts 
to  reform  his  heart,  and  to  do  something  under  t!ie  notion 
of  acting  faith,"  (but  in  reality  to  qualify  himself  for  Christ) 
"thai  he  may  be  justified  ;  and  all  his  endeavois,  prayers, 
and  religious  exercises  will  be  directed  to  that  end."  Thus, 
he  is  working  with  respect  to  justification,  instead  of  be- 
lieving on  him  that  jiistifieth  the  ungodly  purely  through  the 
work  already  finished  by  his  beloved  Son. 

Mr.  Fuller's  method  of  answering  this  is  by  entirely 
changing  the  case  here  Supposed,  and  then  combating  the 
creature  of  his  own  imagination. 


AS   THE    JUSTIFIER    OF    THE    UNGODLY.  131 

He  first  infers  from  it  that  I  deny  the  necessity  of  ro. 
pentance  in  order  to  forgiveness.*     Yet  the  case  supposed 
is  that  of  an  awakened  sinner,  convinced  of  guilt,  distress- 
ed in  his  mind  on  account  of  it,  really  concerned  about  the 
salvation  of  his  soul,  and  not  only  earnestly  desiring  relief, 
but  diligently  laboring  to  obtain  it,  according  to  the  direc 
tion  given  him,  by  the  exercise  of  holy  affections  and  dis- 
positions.     All  this  I  admit   may  be   previous  to  faith  in 
Christ  and  forgiveness  through  him.     And  will  Mr.  Ful. 
ler  deny  that  this  is  the  repentance  he  pleads  for  in  order  to 
forgiveness,  and  as  prenriousto  faith  in  Christ,  and  which  he 
thinks  "a  conviction  of  the  being  and  attributes  of  God" 
is  sufficient  to  produce  I  J"     Wherein,  then,  do   we  differ  ? 
Not  as  to  the  existence  of  the  thing,  but  in  our  judgment 
of  its  quality.     He  supposes  that  this  previous  repentance 
is  of  a  holy  nature,  including  love  to  God.     1  do  not ;  for, 
however  much  convictions  of  sin  and  a  sense  of  need  may 
be  necessary  to  make  sinners  prize  the  remedy;  yet  I  have 
no  idea  thit  unbelievers,  while  such,  have  any  holy  affection 
or  true  love  to  God. 

Upon  this  he  proceeds  to  deny  that  the  case  which  I  have 
supposed,  is  consistent  with  itself.  "It  may  be  question, 
ed,"  he  says,  "  whether  this  account  of  things  be  consistent 
with  itself;  or  whether  any  mere  sinner  ever  views  himself 
merely  as  a  guilty  sinner:  for  such  views  include  a  just 
sense  of  the  evil  of  sin,  and  of  his  own  utter  unworthiness 
of  the  divine  favor,  which  no  mere  sinner  ever  possessed. ":j: 
This  is  that  part  of  the  scheme  whereby  persons,  previous  to 
their  believing  in  Christ,  are  taught  to  extract  comfort  from 
their  convictions  ;  and  some  are  so  extravagant  as  to  imagine 
that,  while  in  this  situation,  they  have  arrived  at  such  a  pitch 
of  holy  affection  as  to  love  God  disinterestedly,  or  without 
any  view  to  his  mercy  ;  so  that,  according  to  this,  the  reve- 

♦  Page  189.  f  Page  173.  t  Page  190. 


132        WHETHER   JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

latiou  of  his  grace  in  the  gospel  must  tend  to  contaminate 
their  pure  aflection, and  mix  It  with  selfishness!  This  con- 
ceit I  consider  to  be  the  very  pinnacle  of  self-righteous 
pride.  I  am  far  from  thinking  that  Mr.  Fuller  would  car- 
ry matters  to  this  extravagant  height :  no ;  I  hope  he  is 
better  acquainted  with  his  own  heart ;  but  yet  I  apprehend 
that  his  doctrine  of  antef.edent  holiness,  and  of  holy  affec 
tion  to  God  being  included  in  convictions  of  sin  previous 
to  faith,  (consequently  without  any  true  ground  of  hope  in 
his  mercy)  can  stand  upon  no  other  principle  but  disinte- 
rested love.  I  am,  however,  of  %very  different  opinion. 
I  believe  that  a  person  may  be  so  awakened  and  convicted 
in  his  conscience  as  to  view  himself  merely  as  a  guilty  sin- 
ner,  i.  e.  havinor  no  ri2;hteousness  to  recommend  him  to 
the  favor  of  God  ;  and  that  under  such  conviction  his  sense 
of  the  evil  of  sin  will  not  be  confined  to  its  ^nishment ; 
but  his  conscience,  or  moral  sense  will  tell  him  that  he  de- 
serves punishment  at  the  hands  of  a  righteous  God.  Yet, 
notwithstanding  this  conviction,  if  he  knows  not  the  ground 
of  hope  in  the  mercy  of  God,  or  the  way  of  relief,  he  will 
neither  truly  fear  nor  love  him  ;  but  will  either  sink  into 
despair,  or,  if  any  hope  remains,  it  must  be  founded  on  his 
repentance  and  resolutions  of  amendment.  And  this  last 
is  the  case  which  I  have  supposed,  in  which  the  awakened 
person  is  laboring  to  acquiie  holy  affections  and  good  dis- 
positions that  he  may  be  justified. 

Now,  because  I  do  not  admit  that  an  awakened  sinner, 
however  strong  his  convictions  of  sin  and  its  desert,  and 
however  earnestly  he  may  desire  relief,  is  possessed  of  true 
holiness  previous  to  faith  ;  therefore  Mr.  Fuller  infers  that 
the  case  which  I  have  stated  must  be  that  of  a  <'  hard-heart- 
ed enemy  to  true  religion  ;"  who  has  not  a  grain  of  regard 
to  God's  name,  nor  concern  for  having  offended  him  ;  nor 
the  least  degree  of  attachment  to  the  atonement  of  Christ 
on  account  of  its  securing  his  honor,  and  who  wishes  not 


AS    THE    JUSTIFIER    OF    THE    UNGODLY.  133 

to  be  saved  from  his  sins,  but  to  be  saved  in  them.  He  al- 
so affirms,  that  I  suppose  this  hard-hearted  sinner  is  to  be 
relieved  by  the  assurance  of  pardon  and  acceptance  with 
God,  and  that  this  is  to  be  derived  directly  from  the  atone- 
ment ;  by  which,  he  says,  I  mean  that  the  mere  sinner  is 
pardoned  without  repentance  or  any  holy  affection  to  Christ 
— that  no  mere  sinner,  in  my  sense  of  the  term,  ever  de- 
rived relief  as  a  mere  sinner  directly  from  the  atonement ; 
but  believing  sinners  only.  That  by  my  way  of  reasoning 
it  should  seem  as  though  impenitent  and  unhumbled  sin- 
ners not  only  derived  their  comfort  in  this  way ;  but  as  if 
they  were  the  only  persons  that  did  so."*  By  this,  and  a 
good  deal  more  in  the  same  spirit  and  strain,  he  shows  his 
zeal  for  the  holiness  of  unbelievers,  and  at  the  same  time 
beats  off  the  self-condemned,  who  can  find  no  holiness 
in  themselves,  from  looking  directly  to  the  atonement  for 
relief. 

I  have  not  the  least  idea  that  a  hard-hearted  enemy  of 
God,  while  such,  can  either  receive  or  enjoy  forgiveness  ; 
but  I  distinguish  between  such  a  state  of  mind,  and  that  of 
an  awakened  self-condemned  sinner,  and  also  between  the 
latter  and  a  real  convert  who  believes  the  Gospel,  has  tasted 
that  the  Lord  is  gracious,  and  is  possessed  of  holy  affec- 
tions.f*     For  strong  convictions  of  sin  have  often  taken 


+  See  page  190—197. 

t  What  is  here  said  of  a  supposed  difference  between  a  hard-heart- 
ed enemy  of  God  and  u  self-condemned  sinner,  of  convictions  pre- 
vious to  faith  and  preparatory  to  it,  is  without  the  shadow  of  a  found- 
ation in  the  word  of  God  ;  and  Mr.  M'Lean  is  here  certainly  obnox- 
ious to  the  charge  of"  building  again  the  things  which  he  destroyed." 
No  further  comment  upon  it  is  necessary  than  that  which  he  himself  has 
furnished  in  his  description  of  the  tenor  and  spirit  of  his  address,  who, 
holding  just  such  sentiments,  should  speak  out  plainly.  "  As  for  you, 
the  hard-hearted  part  of  my  hearers,  I  have  no  authority  to  preach 
the  gospel  to  you   in  your  present  state.     To  you  the   word  of  this 

12 


134      WHETHER   JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

place,  and  been  attended  with  various  affections,  emotions, 
and  resolutions,  which  yet  have  not  issued  in  repentance 
unto  life,  or  a  real  change,  and  so  cannot  be  properly  term- 
ed holy  affections.  Whether  such  convictions  as  issue  in 
conversion  differ  in  kind  from  the  former,  I  will  not  take 
upon  me  to  determine  ;  but  I  am  certain  of  this,  that  it 
would  be  very  unsafe  to  build  up  any  in  an  opinion  of  their 
possessing  holiness  merely  upon  the  ground  of  their  convic- 
tions, while  they  come  short  of  a  real  change,  and  do  not 
believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  That  conviction  of  sin 
and  its  desert,  which  is  subservient  to  faith  in  Christ,  will 
never  lead  a  person  to  think  that  it  is  any  part  of  his  holi- 
ness ;  for  such  a  thought  would  be  as  opposite  to  the  na- 
ture of  his  conviction,  as  his  feeling  a  disease  would  be  to 
his  thinking  himself  whole. 

Mr.  Fuller  ought  not  to  have  treated  the  case  of  the 
awakened  sinner  which  I  have  stated  above,  and  which  de- 
serves compassion,  with  such  unfeeling  contempt  and  un- 
charitable invective  ;  for,  whether  I  consider  him  as  possess- 

salvation  is  not  as  yet  sent.  You  are  not  prepared  or  qualified  for 
it:  you  are  nothing  but  mere  sinners,  and  no  sort  of  encouragement 
or  hope  is  held  out  in  all  the  book  of  God  to  any  sinner  as  surh  con- 
sidered. It  is  only  to  the  penitent  that  the  gospel  is  to  be  preached  ; 
for  to  such  only  does  it  hold  out  its  golden  sceptre.  Let  me  therefore, 
in  the  first  instance,  call  your  attention  to  a  previous  duty  ;  a  duty 
■which  you  must  perform  before,  and  in  order  to  believing,"  «&c.  How 
much  more  consistent  would  Mr.  M'Lean  have  been  with  himself,  to 
say  nothing  of  the  word  of  God,  had  he  here  made  the  truth  "  the  one 
thing  needful  ;"  had  he  centred  all  salvation,  all  desire  in  this ;  had 
he  been  persuaded  that  it  contained  all  that  is  necessary  to  affect  suit- 
ably the  hearts  of  those  who  hold  it  true,  instead  of  dreaming  of  soften- 
ing the  hearts  of  the  stout- hearted  against  God,  by  some  previous  pro- 
cess preparatory  to  believing  it ; — had  he  not  supposed  that  any  in  igno- 
rance of  the  truth  could  be  less  hard-hearted  enemies  of  God  than  oth- 
ers, and  .-ought  for  no  other  fitness  for  the  grace  of  the  gospel  than 
man's  guilt  as  a  sinner,  and  his  misery  as  an  outcast  from  the  favor 
of  God.    Ed. 


AS    THE    JUSTiriER    OF    THE    UNGODLY.  135 

ed  of  real  holiness  or  not,  he  certainly  deserves  no  such 
treatment  from  any,  much  less  from  Mr.  Fuller,  who  ought 
to  have  recognized  his  case  as  the  genuine  effect  of  his  own 
doctrine,  and  so  have  vindicated  his  holiness  ;  but,  instead 
of  this,  he  gets  rid  of  the  case  altogether,  by  changing  it 
into  that  of  a  hard-hearted  enemy  to  true  religion  ;  and  in 
this  form  he  presents  it  to  his  readers,  and  combats  it,  as  if 
I  had  either  stated  or  approved  of  such  a  case ! 

But  if  he  thinks  the  case  which  I  have  supposed  not  ap- 
plicable, we  shall  take  a  real  one,  namely,  that  of  the  Phi- 
lippian  jailer,  Acts  xvi.  in  whom  we  may  perceive  a  hard- 
hearted enemy  to  God  and  true  religion — an  awakened  sin- 
ner— and  a  true  convert  ;  and  all  this  in  the  space  of  a  few 
hours.  Mr.  Fuller  will  certainly  admit  that  he  was  a  hard- 
hearted enemy  to  true  religion  when  he  attempted  to  kill 
himself,  ver.  27.  I  suppose  he  will  also  admit  that  he  was 
a  true  convert  when  he  rejoiced,  believing  in  God,  ver.  34. 
It  remains  then  to  consider  his  intermediate  case  as  an  awak- 
ened sinner,  when  he  "  came  trembling,  and  fell  down  be- 
fore Paul  and  Silas  ;  and  brought  them  out,  and  said,  Sirs, 
what  must  I  do  to  be  saved!"  ver.  29,  30.  Their  answer 
to  this  was  plain,  direct,  and  pertinent,  without  any  double 
meaning  or  reserve, — "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house,"  ver.  31.  But  as 
they  knew  he  could  not  believe  till  they  told  him  what  he 
was  to  believe,  ''  they  spake  unto  him  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house,"  ver.  32.  The  effect  was, 
he  believed  what  they  declared  as  the  word  of  God,  and  was 
immediately  relieved,  and  made  happy  by  it ;  for  he  found 
the  gospel-remedy  perfectly  suited  to  his  case,  and  reaching 
him  guilty  as  he  stood ;  so  that  he  "  rejoiced,"  or  exulted 
"believing  in  God." 

Let  us  now  suppose  that  an  answer  had  been  given  to 
this  self-condemned  jailer  upon  the  principles  which  Mr. 
Fuller  has  advanced.     It  must  be  something  to  the  follow- 


13'j  WHETHER    JUSTIFYING    FAITH    RESPECTS    GOD 

ing  effect: — "You  ask  what  you  must  do  to  be  saved;  to 
this  I  answer  in  general,  that  if  you  believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  you  shall  be  saved.  But  1  must  inform  you 
that  there  are  many  things  requisite  to  your  believing  in  a 
right  manner: — You  must  first  be  regenerated  without  the 
word,  and  have  your  heart  effectually  changed,  and  its  bias 
turned  towards  God,  before  you  know  anything  of  Christ. 
You  must  also  truly  repent  of  all  your  sins,  before  you  be- 
lieve on  him,  and  in  order  to  it.  And,  with  respect  to  this 
repentance,  you  must  observe,  that  it  is  not  a  mere  convic- 
tion of  sin,  and  a  dread  of  its  just  punishment,  such  as  you 
seem  at  present  to  possess ;  but  a  holy  affection  towards 
God,  being  chiefly  concerned  for  the  dishonor  you  have 
done  to  his  name,  and  reconciled  to  his  justice,  though  he 
should  send  you  to  hell.  Then  with  respect  to  your  believ- 
ing in  Christ,  you  must  not  understand  this  in  the  common 
acceptation  of  that  word,  as  if  it  meant  simply  your  giving 
credit  to  the  gospel  testimony  concerning  him ;  for  that 
would  be  an  unholy  speculation,  which  would  never  carry 
you  to  heaven.  There  is  an  important  difference  between 
this  and  the  ideas  which  you  must  attach  to  believing.  It 
is  a  grace  of  the  Spirit,  influenced  by  the  moral  state  of 
the  heart,  and  partaking  of  it,  and  including  in  its  nature 
the  exercise  of  holy  affections  and  good  dispositions.  For 
God  does  not  justify  the  ungodly  till  they  are  possessed  of 
such  antecedent  holiness  as  I  have  described,  nor  perhaps 
till  they  have  been  his  friends  and  servants  for  a  series  of 
years."  Such  an  answer  as  this  must  either  have  driven 
the  poor  trembling  jailer  into  despair,  or  have  set  him  upon 
that  kind  of  perplexing  labor  which  1  have  described  in  the 
former  case  ;  but  could  never  relieve  his  mind,  or  reconcile 
his  heart  to  God,  as  the  apostle's  docti'ine  did. 

Mr.  Fuller  thinks  that  his  doctrine  of  antecedent  holi- 
ness,  and  of  working  for  God,  previous  to  justification,  can 
have  no  bad  effect,  because,  "  whatever  necessity  there  may 


AS    THE    JUSTIFIER    OF    THE    UNGODLY.  137 

be  for  a  writer,  in  vindication  of  the  truth,  to  enumerate 
these  things,  they  are  such  as  the  subject  of  them  thinks 
nothing  of  at  the  time,  especially  as  the  ground  of  his  accept- 
ance with  God."*  But  if  the  subject  of  these  things  thinks 
nothing  of  them  at  the  time,  it  is  not  Mr.  Fuller's  fault. 
He  has  done  what  he  can  to  make  him  both  think  and  act 
upon  them,  and  that  too  with  a  view  to  be  justified.  And 
does  he  imagine  that,  after  all  his  pains,  the  thoughtlessness 
or  inattention  of  his  readers  will  be  a  proper  antidote  against 
the  genuine  influence  of  such  doctrine  ?  Or  does  he  in- 
deed wish  that  this  may  be  the  case  ? 

To  conclude  : — As  the  clear  and  decisive  reasoning  of 
the  apostle  Paul  has  not  put  an  end  to  this  controversy, 
which  has  been  agitated  ever  since,  I  am  of  opinion  that  it 
is  of  such  a  nature  that  it  can  only  be  satisfyingly  de- 
cided in  the  conscience  and  experience  of  such  indivi- 
duals as  are  taught  of  God,  and  that  it  is  part  of  that  know- 
ledge which  no  man  can  effectually  teach  his  neighbor. 

*  Pa2:e  185. 


THE  END. 


6226 


:  i     i 


II^raimmtmlnnHiiiD^Hiffimnll 


'""^       f|l!i  llllil  ill  Ij  IW'W:- 
u|iu.n'.n,{Hiii|;jii.?)iiiliiiiii  iii  ill  iliiiiiihJiihi};;;;! 


iiUiii.ilMHlUliiU'iffili'l'iit    ill!,'! 


IlilllllliH!  illiiiili!    !!n!li!il!!lii!ll!lli:!!IHP:::!iH!l!l!!!i  k... 


